


Me ie 


vy 
% 
dy 





THE EARLY ENGLISH 
COUNTY COURT 
AN HISTORICAL TREATISE 


WITH ILLUSTRATIVE 
DOCUMENTS 


BY 


WILLIAM ALFRED MORRIS 








i 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PUBLICATIONS IN 
- Volume 14, No. 2, pp. 89-230. 
“Issued April 9,1926 = 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA PRESS 





CAMBRIDGE UNIVERSITY F 
Lonpon, ENGLAND 





ae Ly : 
ane ay 
ee ae 
ae ' 
} % 
, o Si, 
‘ 
4 » 
4 
= 
be 
¢ n 
era 
> $ 
re 
ops 
aa : 
rays 
é 
wi 
, 
4 





4 
‘ 


‘ 


= mh 


r. 
¥ 
> 
ey 
) : 
rh 
’ 
Re 
77 
'’ A 
, ae 
¥ 
° 
3 
} 
yt 
— 
f 
Ve 
‘ 


THE EARLY ENGLISH COUNTY COURT 


AN HISTORICAL TREATISE WITH 
ILLUSTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 


BY 


WILLIAM ALFRED MORRIS 


CONTENTS 


PART I 


THE COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH AND 
FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 


PAGE 

1. Nerep or A New STupy OF THE COUNTY COURT...00....0.cccccccecccesscccessceseeeee 89 

eee eeCUECY AND IMEETING-PLACES. «..0.0.c.......cccsccsesnsccececececescenvesccsreeveccntdacses 90 

a Re YTD 5, ee cs ates chica geod eos ss satbonsnd Aodttten dev acektey cd saoein 94 

4. Macnus ComITAtTus AND PLENUS COMITATUS...0..0....cccccccceccesscescesseeeseeeass 97 
TM oR STE, feb cen secede ences Sees ne go sein Soap coe ranWanache obGbuke cian 100 

Re re NUIT Ys COURT OAT WORK. ..c...00.:.:cc0ss0-casdecsesssscdecvescsonscactgosectevencedaceores 105 
Pe DGMENT IN THE COUNTY COURT ic... ccccocscecesecssissiecststeeducletecsedesencegeseanes 107 

8. OFFENSES INCLUDED IN THE SHERIFF'S PRACB..00.0.0...0...ccccccccccecceeeseeerecssaes 112 
s 9. BUSINESS RELATING TO PLEAS OF THE CROWN.............ccccccccssscesesesescesseeets 113 
RP artes ETE TATTOO iy oo syn casos, -vsoseed oon chosnnes andievucneoseavsnddaverasdhed st bedlacs unre 7 
elias GHPRIFK AS THE KING'S JOSTUCH. co. ccsee-cccscssscosscssssecessseonselevesssssiosses 121 
Se at Y A COURT PROCEDU RE....0.0c-siccs-oresecscuycdusssecesedscndyestnscseasseasesecveceatateceutds 122 
MMA COU MONTS AND PINUS... ..c.0:-:.cjesss-eseseccseccecsssccicstetorecesessceuetssedstcassbisecscnss 125 
eee He COUNTY COURT AS A COURT OF RECORD. ..0.0..0:..0-::8csetesessesneteeeteeens 128 
“15. Tue Removat or Causes TO THE KING’S COURTS..00.cccccccccccccesceceseeseseees 130 
16. ADMINISTRATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE COUNTY COURT.......00..00cccccceeeeeee 131 
RT CEN TS ny chic ba dig ae ede, Beiapee eee ate ieaiounn gia ian 132 
METEOR A INTN GL MP UTS opiates shocks secs os Laevantctineds noclees baduontue-oueecatuan 134 
MMA TSRCUINIGTIRATTVES PUBLICITY... oo. ics. c.ccsscuen sb éste la chaswkessbfsansacahgyessessbecdghannstedeebeehics 136 
ed Eg oe Os al YD SR ES ale a OP at ey Ve NCAR oA YR een SCHR ao 139 


ages etl Rete 


dg) Wed boas Ta 
ILLUSTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 


A. MISCELLANEOUS CouNnTYy CourRT DOCUMENTS 


PAGE 
SuccEssIVE SESSIONS OF THE CouNTY OF MIDDLESEX, 1296................ 149 
SUCCESSIVE SESSIONS OF THE County Court oF LINCOLNSHIRE, 1344.. 150 
MENTION OF THE SHIRE HALL AND THE RETROCOMITATUS...........0.0000000- 151 
DESIGNATION OF THE PLACE FOR HOLDING THE County Court oF 
SURRBY, 1202.00 iasccsecscscenseseetieiecneatinedsnecqretnayehs plier 151 
RELIEF FROM Suir or County, 1254...) 0004.5.0heee 152 
THE SETTING OF A DAY FOR HEARING PLAINTS, 1254.00.00 nse 152 
PRESENTMENT OF ENGLISHRY IN THE County Court or Sussex 
VQ8 Vin cnceccsciescdatondencscessasolavestes ernst etuanesicsh oe rrr 153 
APPEALS IN THE County CourRT OF Wroroneeeam 1243.52 Scere: 153 
APPEALS IN THE County Court or NOTTINGHAM, 1280...............0.00.0.0.. 155 
PROCEEDINGS UPON AN APPEAL de averwis captis, tempore PROBABLY 
EpwAarp I on EDWARD ID. 0.0. ccc. tissssese 156 
Custom IN WESTMORELAND REGARDING APPEARANCE AND PLEDGING 
OF THE ACCUSED, 1278........c.ccccssehes-sssesssshecisareou ab) as gan 158 
MANUCAPTION IN THE County Court, 1895...............400)-. une 158 
ORDER TO PLACE OFFENDERS ON THE EXIGENT, 1252.00.00... cect 159 
ORDER TO PLACE OFFENDER ON THE EXXIGENT, 1344.00.00 ees 159 
Tue Process or OuTLAWRY, 1341......000)......0.. 160 
AN ILLEGAL JUDGMENT OF OUTLAWRY, 1274......c..cyee 162 
ORDER FOR DECLARATION TO ANNUL OUTLAWRY, 1249...........ceececeee 163 
ACTION UPON AN APPEAL IN THE COUNTY COURT CONCERNING STRIPES, 
MAYHEM, AND BREACH OF THE PEACE, 1254...0......cccccceeeeeeeerereteteeee 164 
ACTION UPON AN APPEAL CONCERNING OTHER OFFENSES, 1262............ 164 
A Woman’s APPEAL WITH PLEDGES FOR PROSECUTION, 1382......... ear 165 
AN Inquest In A County Court By JUDICIAL ORDER, BERKSHIRE 
EYRE, 1274....o.:cccccscssessasisednevsssscesarsesecabss sansvanse coy teagan 165 
AN INQUEST TO ASCERTAIN WHO HAS COMMITTED AN OFFENSE, 1257... 166 
An INQUEST TO DETERMINE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED, 1260................0...-. 166 
PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE GRAND ASSIZE, 1285............cccccccceeees 167 
AN ORDER RESPITING ACTION UPON A CASE IN A County Court, 
LOB AL oo. cccciecoctssesenssebueddzrevatecvns ouasevoeonéond+yuteuuuneitieh pclae 167 
THE WRIT POND. 00.0 c0cicccsccsseéesoits vinetse.scvdgewncsee vers «eet ee 168 
Writs oF CERTIORARI WITH RETURN, 1306, 1819... a 169 
Inquest IN Country CoURT CONCERNING PROPERTY OF A Roya 
WARD, JUNE 1258 ..0.csciccccedecscsceesess:odieness pos aan 170 
INQUEST CONCERNING PAYMENT OF A DEBT DUE THE KING, 1263........ 170 
INQUEST CONCERNING VARIOUS DEBTS PAID TO SHERIFFS, 1271............ iit 
INSTALLATION OF BAILIFFS IN THE CoUNTY CouRT, 1278............:00000 172 


[iv ] 


32. 
33. 


34. 
35. 
36. 
37. 
38. 


39. 
40. 


41. 


42. 


43. 


44. 


45. 


An EscHEATOR’S OATH OF OFFICE IN THE County Court, 1259........ 172 
An ABBOT’S APPOINTMENT IN THE County Court oF AGENTS TO 
RECEIVE ESTREATS AND SUMMONSES OF THE EXCHEQUER.................. biz 
READING OF A DEED IN FRENCH AND ENGLISH, 1295.......0..0.00cccccceee 173 
eerepere OM AM JUIT CLAIM, L267) ccc. scccsecccarssssssksovvsatletaeesurcedestoressenecpeati 174 
READING OF CHARTERS AND LETTERS OF PROTECTION, 1254.......00........... 174 
PADDING OF THE GREAT CHARTER, 1256 .0............ccs:c-cccccesssssscedecesecenteseeoovtes 175 
PROCLAMATION IN THE County Court AS A STEP IN ADMINISTRATION, 
eae MH ay ge i eT efit ae ste hn tel vases ses asi opahlosbinte ine 175 
EXAMPLES OF THE Writ de Coronatore eligendo.............cccccccccccccsecssseesenees 178 
ELECTIONS OF OFFICIALS IN Country Court, 1258, 1345.00.00 179 


B. County Court REcorpDs 


EXTRACTS FROM THE ROLLS OF THE CouNTYy Court OF CORNWALL, 
HELD AT LOSTWITHIEL ON MONDAY BEFORE THE FEAST OF ST. 
THOMAS AND ON MONDAY THE MORROW OF THE DECOLLATION OF 


See NTH BAPTIST. 7 HIDWARD LUD oc. occbekiegcctcseeveoeevsesssnsvovatie 181 
PERQUISITES OF THE County Court oF KENT, FROM MONDAY BEFORE 
THE Feast or St. JOHN THE Baptist, 48 Henry III...........0000....... 197 


PROFICUUM ARISING FROM THE CounTy Courts or .ESsEX AND 
HERTFORD, FROM MICHAELMAS AT THE CLOSE OF Henry III To 
Pre WAIGHABLMAS NEXT FOLLOWING. .0.....cc.cc.cscccccsccsssesserssssesvecrsssnsssbevees 201 

PERQUISITES OF THE County Court or DEVON, FROM THE FEAST 
or St. CALIXTUS AT THE BEGINNING OF 43 Henry ITI.........0..0......... 207 

AMERCEMENTS IN THE County Court oF YORKSHIRE, FROM OCTO- 
BER, 42 Henry III, to Seprempmr, 43 Henry IIL... .. 223 


[v] 





PREFACE 


This work represents an attempt to bring together from the 
scattered source materials an account of the sessions and business 
of the medieval county court. The period selected is the earliest 
for which various types of record exist, that of the thirteenth 
eentury and the earlier fourteenth. In defense of its antiquity 
may be urged the slight amount of definite information concern- 
ing this important body. When authorities upon the subject 
declare that “‘there is less known about the actual working of 
the English County Court in 1689 than of the Vehmgericht or 


294 


the Court of the Praetor Peregrinus,’’' surely the modern period 
has little advantage over the middle ages. Whatever brings one 
in immediate touch with the county court of any period is worth 
while. The closer is the contact with the men of the county thus 
assembled, the better is the understanding of English law and 
administration and of the development of English democracy. 
In the county court, participation of the local community in the 
affairs of central government attained its highest point. Great 
as 1ts importance was in law and in local government, strangely 
enough it stands out boldest as an agency employed to further 
the king’s administrative and judicial business. 

The manuscripts here published as illustrations are of an 
official nature. None has hitherto appeared in print, and but two 
are available in calendared form. All but one are documents 
preserved at the Public Record Office in London. The exception 
is a St. Paul’s manuscript which the editor owes to the kindness 
of Mr. H. G. Richardson. A few documents of well-known types, 

1 Sidney and Beatrice Webb, English Local Government: Parish and 
County, 291. 


[vii ] 


such as the writ Pone, the writ De Coronatore eligendo, and 
proceedings illustrating the process of outlawry, have been 
included for the sake of comprehensiveness or contrast in 
forms of different periods, or for specific details in themselves 
interesting. 

These documents fall into two categories. Those printed in 
division A of Part II usually throw mere casual light upon 
the county court and are collected from various series. The 
Coroners’ Rolls, the Assize Rolls, the Chancery Miscellanea, and 
the Memoranda Rolls are most largely represented. The longer 
selections appearing in division B of Part II, on the other hand, 
are consciously preserved county court records. The first of 
these, the county court roll of Cornwall for 1333, is practically 
unique among the documents in the Publie Record Office, 
inasmuch as the only other known county court rolls, the twin 
rolls for Berkshire and Oxfordshire of the reign of Richard II, 
do not aim to record the whole volume of judicial business.?. The 
last four documents are lists of amercements imposed at various 
sessions of county courts, and kept by sheriffs as a record of this 
portion of the ferm of their counties. These documents convey 
a considerable amount of useful information both as to the 
sessions of the county courts and the business dispatched before 
them. 

The original record Latin has been extended except where 
stock abbreviations or forms of exceptional difficulty occur. - 
Some abbreviations are so familiar in diplomatie documents that 
they are best retained. An attempt to extend the names of the 
counties would be useless, even were it clear just what spelling 
the writer of a given document would have used. In a few other 
cases it is impossible to determine the form which the clerk had 
in mind. It is a pleasure to acknowledge the invaluable aid 
os Revottion of the Oxford roll, edited by Hilary Jenkinson, appears in 


the Cambridge Historical Journal, I, part 1, 1923, p. 106. The Berkshire 
record is indexed as Court Rolls, portfolio 153, no. 62. 


[ vill ] 


rendered by Miss Dorothy M. Page in transcribing the documents 
included in division B of Part II and a few of those in division 
_A; also the kindness of Mr. H. G. Richardson in supplying a 
copy of the document which appears in Part II as no. 34; also 
the kindness of Miss Helen M. Cam in providing the writer with 
a copy of the document designated as no. 3. He is further 
indebted to Miss Cam for the generous communication of her 
discovery of the record of the county court of Cornwall. 


[ix] 





PART | 


THE COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH 
AND FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 


Me™ 





' 
, 
* 
et 
4 
a 





bale 


THE COUNTY COURT OF THE THIRTEENTH AND 
FOURTEENTH CENTURIES 


1. NEED OF A NEW STUDY OF THE COUNTY COURT 


The constitutional and the legal historian each from his own 
point of view has dwelt upon certain aspects of the county court, 
yet neither has attempted, nor have both collectively given, a 
comprehensive account of this important body. The one has 
treated the county assembly with the rise of parliamentary insti- 
tutions primarily in view, the other has left but a partial account 
of its legal business. The county court has in the main fallen 
somewhere between Stubbs and Pollock and Maitland. To too 
many it is familiar only because it was numbered among the folk- 
motes of the Anglo-Saxon period and because later it chose two 
knights who represented the shire in parliament. Well known as 
the cradle of Anglo-Saxon self-rule, it is still largely unknown. 
Until about the twelfth century the chief court of ordinary 
resort, it occupied down to modern times a useful place as a local 
forum for the trial of some civil suits. In the prosecution of 
offenses against the peace until the fifteenth century it rendered to 
the king’s justices constant and indispensable service which has 
generally failed to gain recognition. It also bore an important 
part in the king’s administrative arrangements which has not 
been fully appreciated. This ancient assembly court may well 
demand a new examination. Although some questions regarding 
its sessions have found answer in recent years,' many other 


1 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (1899), I, 538-556. 


90 University of Californa Publications in History (Vou. 14 


matters still require elucidation. Not even the great mass of 
thirteenth-century records yet enables the historian entirely to 
dispel the darkness, but something may be attempted. 


2. FREQUENCY AND MEETING-PLACES 


The facts concerning the terms at which the county convened 
prior to the reign of Henry III are well known. To the meetings 
held twice a year in King Edgar’s time it was possible, by the 
time of Canute, to add intervening assembles when these were 
deemed necessary. The same rule is mentioned almost a century 
later, in the reign of Henry I. This monarch forbade sheriffs 
without special authority to hold sessions at other times and 
places than those customary in the reign of Edward the Con- 
fessor.? Similar inhibition of usage which threatened to burden 
the men of the various counties with too many meetings occurs 
in the Magna Charta of 1217, which, however, recognizes the 
legality of monthly sessions except where a longer interval has 
been customary. Such local variation presumably occurred in 
the reign of Henry I* and even earlier. The county court of 
Northumberland fairly late in the thirteenth century was meet- 
ing every six weeks.¢ The well-known rule which in Lincoln- 
shire® a half-century earlier prescribed an interval of forty days 
between sessions 1s shown by fourteenth century evidence to have 
meant in practice a period of exactly six weeks.° This was the 
interval in Yorkshire and quite clearly that also in Lanecashire.* 

That the time between the usual monthly sessions was regu- 
larly measured by the lunar month of twenty-eight days is a 


2 Liebermann, Gesetze der Angelsachsen, I, 524. 

3 Otherwise the king’s writ (cf. note 2) would probably mention the 
frequency of meetings. 

4 Northumberland Assize Rolls, Surtees Soe., 315. 

5 Bracton’s Note Book, ed. F. W. Maitland, III, 567; Pollock and Mait- 
land, I, 538. . 

6 Below, p. 223 ff. 

7 Below, nos. 1, 15, and Hachequer Misc. Roll, 5/40. J. J. Alexander 
proves this for the four northern counties (Hnglish Historical Review, XL, 
5) from evidence dating from the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries. 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 91 


fact which has been overlooked. This indeed is stated to be true 
in the seventeenth century.* The rule may frequently be traced 
in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries, and some lists show 
thirteen sessions a year.® Unless there occurred some irregularity 
not discernible in the records, a monthly session could have 
meant nothing else than one every four weeks, for it continued 
but one day and was always assigned to the same day of the 
week.*° Thus King Henry III, in granting that the county court 
of Derbyshire be held at the town of Derby, rather than at 
Nottingham where the two counties had hitherto assembled, 
ordered that it should meet on Wednesday, which heretofore had 
been the court day.‘ Subsequently the county court of Notting- 
hamshire convened at Nottingham on Monday.?? 

The coroners’ rolls, taken in conjunction with records of the 
type published in this volume, make it possible to determine on 
what day of the week most of the county courts met.'** Evidently 
a conscious effort was made to prevent these monthly meetings 
in adjacent counties from falling on the same day, just as there 
was a similar effort to prevent weekly market days in neighboring 
towns from falling together. The Statute of Wales, in providing 
for the establishment of county courts in the six Welsh counties 
which existed in 1284, specified that they were to be held from 
month to month in such place as the king should ordain, upon 
Monday in one county, Tuesday in another, Wednesday in a 
third, Thursday in a fourth, and not upon any other days."* 

8 Greenwood, County Judicatures (ed. 3, 1668), p. 5. 


9 Below, pp. 197 ff., 201 ff. 


10 The Suffolk sessions of 1369-70 form an exception. They were held 
usually on Tuesdays or Saturday, but also on other days (Hachequer L. T. 
R. Misc. Roll 6/11), once on Sunday. 


11 Placita de Quo Warranto, 159. The date of the grant was May 15, 
1256, and not as indicated in Annales Monastici, III, 199. 

120. T. R. Miscellaneous Rolls, bundle 5, no. 79. 

12a The fifteenth, sixteenth, and seventeenth century list of county days 
appears in Bulletin of Institute of Historical Research, III, no. 8, 93. 

13 Statutes.of the Realm, I, 56. Cf. J. J. Alexander in English Histor. 
wev., +l, Jan. 1925. 


92 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


To the duty of assembling at the usual period the county was 
held in the thirteenth century, as in the seventeenth,’* by the 
requirement that offenders who did not duly appear be demanded 
at successive sessions and outlawed if they were not present at 
the fifth. If a session was postponed to a time later than that 
required by custom the fugitive could not be properly demanded, 
and the king’s justices might mulct the county heavily for the 
irregularity." But some allowance was made to provide for 
emergencies. The records show that meetings might occur a week 
earlier or a week later than usual, the subsequent meeting return- 
ing to the regular: schedule as it stood before this temporary 
disturbance. When in the early fourteenth century the king’s 
justices in eyre sat in the county they might order that no 
regular sessions of the county court be held except by reason of 
land cases under the writ of right or for appeals of felony.*’® 
The session of the county before the justices seems even to have 
been sufficient for carrying out the process of outlawry. When 
the king was present in person in the county one of his officials 
might hold pleas to the exclusion of other business. 

The rule laid down early in the twelfth century, that counties 
should convene at the same places where they met in the time of 
King Edward, implies the impossibility of changing the place of 
assembly without the king’s consent.*’ In the reign of Henry II] 
such changes are thus authorized. Not only was Derby desig- 
nated by royal grant as a county town but so also was Guildford 
in Surrey.'® In 1278 the king’s letters close ordered proclamation 
to be made that the county court of Somerset, hitherto held at 
Ilchester, should henceforth be convened at Somerton.'® The 

14 Dalton, Office and Authority of Sheriffs, 405. 

15 Northumberland Assize Rolls, Surtees Soe., 315. 

. anaes Eyre of Kent, 1313-14 (Selden Soc.), pp. xviii, 7. See below, 


17 According to an expression in a case recorded in Bracton’s Note Book 
(no. 1730) this was a function of the king and the magnates of the realm. 


18 Below, p. 151. 
19 Cal. Close Rolls, 1272-79, p. 460. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 93 


eounty court of Sussex was drawn to Chichester before the 
Barons’ War upon the initiative of Richard, Karl of Cornwall,?° 
but this action subsequently received the king’s sanction. 

The designation of a county town was of interest not only to 
suitors who were bound to travel hither, but also to tradesmen 
who derived profit from this fact. Local rivalry, possibly also 
the absence of an outstanding center of population, seems to 
account for a peculiar arrangement by which in three or four 
counties the monthly assembly of the thirteenth century alter- 
nated between towns. That for Sussex was held at Shoreham 
as well as at Lewes.7!. In the reign of Edward I Chichester 
became a third meeting-place, and in the time of Edward III it 
seems to have had as many meetings as both of the others.?? In 
Essex sessions were held at Langthorn, occasionally at Writeley, 
and in Middlesex, at Brainford and Stony Cross.?* In Cornwall 
in 1331 and 1332 nearly all the sessions were held at Lostwithiel, 
but there was an occasional one at Launceston.”* 

The belief that the courts of shire and hundred anciently met 
out of doors?® finds support in the usage which sometimes named 
hundreds for stones or trees? and which in the Norman period 
convened others at Fliteham Birch ;** also in that which anciently 


20 Rotult Hundredorum, II, 202; Pollock and Maitland, Hist. Eng. Law, 
I, 555, and n. 6. 

21 Rotult Hundredorum, I, 215. 

22 Coroners’ Rolls, 256, m. 2. Subsequently Chichester became the sole 
meeting-place until the well-known statute of 19 Henry VII, cap. 29, pre- 
scribed that, in view of the hardship involved upon those who had to travel 
to the extreme end of the county, its court should meet alternately here and 
at Lewes. 

23 Below, pp. 148, 173, 201-203; Coroners’ Rolls, 256, m. 2. 

24 Huchequer L. T. R. Miscellaneous Rolls, bundle 5, no. 21. For a similar 
irregularity in Herefordshire see below, p. 205. 

25 Pollock and Maitland, I, 555, note 5. 

26 E.g., hundred of Kirkwardstone, Wilts; hundred of Leightonstone, 
Hunts; hundred of Burbeech, Surrey; hundred of Appletree, Derbyshire. 

27 Ramsey Chartulary, I, 236: apud Flictehamburch. 


94 University of California Publications in History |Vou. 14 


convened shiremotes at a stone or on a heath”® or, as late as the 
time of Edward I, in a green place.*® But in the thirteenth cen- 
tury gatherings in the open air, like those in obscure places, must 
have been unusual. By Bracton’s time the proverbial place for 
the county court to meet is the ecastle.*® Sessions in the castle 
are mentioned at Oxford*! and York,*? and the county court of 
Lincolnshire in the earlier years of Henry III is represented as 
meeting indoors.** Since in more than half of the counties the 
sheriff held the castle of one of the towns, usually the chief town, 
along with the county, Bracton’s assumption carries conviction. 
Only in a minority of cases could the question of the meeting- 
place have raised special questions. But in the latter half of the 
thirteenth century the county court was in some eases forsaking 
the castle for the shire hall. At Lostwithiel,** to be sure, the 
change to the hall could hardly have been made from a castle, 
but at Oxford this was true. There by 1275 meetings were 
regularly held in the hall of the manor of Oxford.*® The county 
court which met at Stafford also held its sessions in a hall.** 


3. SPECIAL SESSIONS 


Assurance that the county court should not be called together 
more frequently than once a month, and not so often if the custom 
of the county prescribed a longer interval, was afforded by a 


28 In Cnut’s time a shire gemot convened at Agelnothe’s stone (Codex 
Diplomaticus, no. 755; Hssays in Anglo-Saxon Law, by Henry Adams and 
others, 865). For the meeting of the county of Kent in the time of William 
the Conqueror, see Bigelow, Placita Anglo-Normannica, 4-6; Domesday 
Book, I, 1. 


29 Pollock and Maitland, I, 555. 

30 Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls Ser., V, 360. 

31 Bracton’s Note Book, ed. Maitland, case no. 212. 
32 Sel. Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soe., no. 106. » 

33 Bracton’s Note Book, case no. 1730. 

34 Pollock and Maitland, I, 555. 


35 Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1272-81, p. 127. Cf. Hist. Monast. Abingdon (Rolls 
Ser.), I, 119. 


36 Below, no. 3. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 05 


great charter of liberties. In one instance a sheriff who attempted 
to retain for a second day’s session enough men to hear the causes 
left over met the objection that this was a second session within 
the same month. Furthermore, the king’s justices sustained the 
objection.*’ Special sessions of the county court required the 
king’s order. In the thirteenth century this was already an old 
rule. King Henry I in his notable writ dealing with the sessions 
of the local courts forbade sheriffs to assume the initiative in 
calling such sessions for their own purposes. When these should 
be demanded in the future by any matter pertaining to the 
king’s administrative needs he undertook to give special author- 
ization.** Later usage is in conformity with this order. <A 
partial exception is found in the Magna Charta of 1215,°° which 
permits the justices four times a year, in taking recognitions 
concerning possessory assizes on the day following the county 
court, to hold over for that purpose as many knights and free- 
holders as are necessary. But this article disappears from the 
reissue of the Charter in 1217. 

The special sessions which the king’s writ orders the sheriff 
to assemble for purposes of the royal business are of two kinds, 
judicial and administrative. The most detailed information 
available concerning attendance at the county court is found in 
the writs which command that the county be convened to meet 
the itinerant justices. The eyre was thus in practice a session of 
the county court, sometimes apparently the courts of two coun- 
ties under the same sheriff.4° These sessions, unlike the regular 
monthly ones, might be of extended duration. One of the earliest 
of this type to be mentioned, that on Penenden Heath in the time 
of William the Conqueror, continued three days. By the time of 

87 Bracton’s Note Book, case 1730. Cf. Select Pleas of the Crown, Selden 


Soe., no. 106, which shows the sheriff of Yorkshire in 1212 assembling men 
to hold adjourned pleas of the county. 


88 Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 523; ef. p. 553 (7:4). 
aeSec. 19. 
40 As in Rotuli Literarum Clausarum, I, 403. 


96 University of California Publications in History [Vow 14 


the death of Edwad I, so it has been shown,*! an eyre might con- 
tinue for a year, but it is hardly possible that this means the 
constant attendance of the whole county for any considerable 
portion of that period. In the time of Henry II sheriffs were 
ordered to convene the county in advance of the coming of the 
justices to inquire concerning those newly arrived in the county 
and to place them under pledge to appear if required.*” 

Sheriffs were also directed occasionally to summon the county 
court for purely administrative purposes. Thus in 1220 all the 
sheriffs had precepts to convene their respective counties and 
cause to be chosen in each two knights who were to assess and 
collect a carucage.*® In 1222 the sheriff of Essex was ordered to 
assemble his county for the election of verderers to serve in the 
forest of Essex.4* In 1225 sheriffs at the king’s order also sum- 
moned their counties in special session to choose taxors of the 
fifteenth.*? There appears little or no evidence at a later time to 
show that specially called county courts often dealt with such 
matters. The tradition that attendance was to be required but 
once a month was closely associated with the subject’s idea of his 
liberties, and the king’s writs seem to have been so worded as to 
permit the disposal of matters affecting his administration at the 
usual sessions. Possibly the leeway of a week in holding these 
was given to meet just this situation. 


41 The Eyre of Kent, Selden Soc., Introd., pp. li—lii. 

42 Assize of Clarendon, sec. 19. 

43 Rotuli Literarum Clausarum, I, 437. The date of the writ is appar- 
ently between August 9 and 21. Since the work must be completed by the 
morrow of Michaelmas (September 30) it is fairly clear that in some coun- 
ties a special session of the county court is necessary and that the intent 
is to order an extra session for this business. 

44 Ibid., I, 493. Cf. Close Rolls, 1231-34, p. 50. 

45 Stubbs, Select Charters, 355; Mitchell, Studies in Taxation, 164. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court aM 


4, MAGNUS COMITATUS AND PLENUS COMITATUS 


In the thirteenth century is mentioned a magnus comitatus 
or generalis comitatus, held twice a year, the duty of attendance 
at which is wider than in the case of the usual monthly session.** 
This appears to be the successor of the original county court of 
King Edgar’s day. It is difficult to draw any conclusions con- 
cerning it from the extremely limited amount of information 
obtainable. The two meetings were six months apart and their 
recorded dates** show that those for different counties were not 
in the same month, ranging over a considerable period both in 
the spring and in the fall. The questions naturally arise whether 
such a session had especial judicial or administrative importance, 
and whether it was the plenus comitatus in which the king’s 
writs direct the sheriffs to have a very considerable amount of 
business transacted. } 

All that may be said concerning the matter is that no known 
fact beyond that of a somewhat wider attendance differentiates 
this session from those held month by month. The amercements 
imposed in it are quite the same as those shown in the rolls of 
the monthly sessions.*® There appears no sufficient reason for 
concluding that it held any such place of preéminence as the 
sheriff’s tourn held above other sessions of the hundred. 

That the plenus comitatus of the thirteenth century*? was not 
this session is fairly clear. If, for instance, when all the sheriffs 


46 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law (1899), I, 538-540. 


47 The meager records in the L. T. R. Miscellaneous Rolls, bundles 5 and 
6, reveal the following dates: in Northamptonshire, 48 Henry III, Monday, 
the morrow of St. Margaret (July 20) ; in Derbyshire, 49 Henry III, Thurs- 
day after the feast of St. Luke (Oct. 18); in Cornwall, Monday after the 
feast of St. John before the Latin Gate (May 6); in Essex at the close of 
47 Henry III, Wednesday after the octave of St. Michael (Oct. 10) also 
Wednesday after the close of Easter (April 11). 


48 Below, pp. 201, 203. 


49 What is meant in King John’s time is more of a question. The county 
of Essex declared in 1212 that it was their custom to outlaw the person 
demanded per quattuor comitatus plenarios (Rot. Lit. Claus., I, 165-166). 


98 Unwersity of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


were ordered to make some important proclamation in pleno 
comitatu,° this meant that they were to wait from two to six 
months before executing the order, then the chancery, which was 
the king’s mouthpiece, was certainly more than remiss in carry- 
ing out his directions, some of which were of an urgent nature. 
Moreover, it is possible to find peremptory orders for such 
general proclamations demanding compliance by a date which 
certainly made it impossible for some of the sheriffs to await 
the day of the semiannual session.*! These circumstances tend 
strongly to show that, when the chancellor, as he was continually 
doing, caused to be issued to sheriffs writs by which they were 
directed to do this or that in full county court, action at any 
session was acceptable and indeed was often demanded. 

There are other facts which strengthen this conclusion. From 
the time of Edward I the representatives of the shire in parlia- 
ment are said to be elected in the full county court.°? The 
Statute of 1406,°* in specifying that the sheriff shall proceed 
en plein couwntee to the election of knights of the shire at the 
next session of the county after he receives the writ, is certainly 
reflecting earlier ideas. In the year 1300 certain action im pleno 
comitatu was required four times a year,°* something entirely 
impossible of fulfillment if plenus and magnus comitatus were 
synonymous. Furthermore, the delivery of original and judi- 
cial writs to the sheriff in the county court, mentioned in the 
Statute of Westminster®> and certainly an affair of frequent 

50 As, for example, in Close Rolls, 1231-34, pp. 309-310. 

51 Thus (according to Cal. Close Rolls, 1302-07, pp. 86-87) on April 16, 
1303, sheriffs were ordered to have proclamations made at once in full 
county court regarding military claims of the king. A response from some 
sheriffs was expected by the morrow of Ascension (May 24), from others 
by the morrow of Trinity (June 19). 


52 Stubbs, Constitutional History, II, 239. 


58 Statutes of the Realm, II, 156, cap. 15. Cf. Stubbs, Constnl. Hist., IIT, 
417. 


54 Foedera, I, 919. 


55 Cap. 39, Statutes of the Realm, I, 90. Cf. the writer’s presentation in 
English Historical Review, XXXIX (July, 1924), of the contrast between 
plenus comitatus and retrocomitatus. 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 99 


occurrence, which could not be delayed for any length of time, 
is said by Fleta to take place in pleno comitatu.*® 

The use of the adjective plenus to describe a court is by no 
means confined to the county assemblage. On the contrary it is 
applied to most courts in existence in the thirteenth century,*” 
not excluding parliament. In the last-named case it has been 
shown in a convincing manner that the word refers to the ‘‘ pub- 
licity of proceedings rather than the fullness of attendance.’’®* 
So the full county court was clearly the open public session 
attended by the body of those who were customarily under 
obligation to attend. In it the men of the shire heard the king’s 
proclamations, attended to his business as he directed, heard 
accusations of crime, or witnessed the installation of local 
officials. It is contrasted with inquests before the sheriff which 
do not eall for the presence, or at any rate the attention, of all 
of these. It is contrasted also with proceedings in a case from 
participation in which some of those in attendance are excluded. 
Men are mentioned as attending a session of the county, but as 
appearing on the same day im pleno comitatu for a particular 
purpose.*® The advantages of publication, of public procedure, 
of the safeguard of a numerous body of witnesses, of the partici- 
pation of the county at large, are sought by the king’s writs 


56 Fleta, liber II, cap. 67, sec. 18. 


57 Certain transactions take place in pleno scaccario (L. T. Rk. Memor- 
anda Roll 66, m. 16), and in the eyre are said to be in plena curia (Assize 
Roll 8, 4 Edward I, Bedford, m. 40). This same word is used to describe a 
hundred court (Assize Roll 48, m. 40 d; Court Rolls, bundle 18, no. 7, 19 
Edward I). 


58 Hnglish Historical Review, XXX, 660-662. 


59 In Select Coroners’ Rolls, Selden Soe., p. 4, it is apparently contrasted 
with the coroner’s inquest. When inquests are in pleno comitatu this is 
specified in the writ. In Pleas of the County of Gloucester, ed. Maitland, 
no. 434, a man comes to the next comitatus after Christmas, but shows his 
stripes in pleno comitatu. So at the county court of Berkshire on his second 
appearance to make an appeal a man gives testimony in pleno comitatu 
(Assize Roll 48, m. 36,.12 Edward I). 


100 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


which require action in pleno comitatu. This expression in the 
thirteenth century clearly refers to one aspect of any session of 
the county and not merely to the old-time semiannual meeting.®° 


5. SUIT AND SUITORS 


Attendance or, as it was called, suit at the county court was 
a duty, a burden, resting upon certain men, or perhaps more 
properly upon certain lands, of the shire. The large number of 
exemptions sought and obtained from the kings of the twelfth 
and thirteenth centuries show how it was regarded. Extensive 
areas must have been released thus from the obligation. Suit of 
counties and hundreds was a form of service due the king, 
rateable in terms of financial value. Withdrawal of it, therefore, 
involved loss to the monarch.®*t The sheriff enforced it by dis- 
traint, on this account seizing the beasts of one man and the 
money of another.®? Respite of this obligation,®* pardon for 
failure to acquit it, or transfer of suit from one county to 
another,®* as well as complete acquittance, might all be effected 
by means of the king’s grant. 

It is evident in the Hundred Rolls that many persons had 
withdrawn suit without license. Just before the Barons’ War 
it was believed that some had been excused without proper war- 
rant, merely through arrangement with sheriffs and _ bailiffs. 
Beginning in 1254, the justices in eyre regularly made inquiry 
concerning this.°° This charge against sheriffs and their sub- 


60 The assertion of a redactor of the Leges Edwardi Confessoris (Lieber- 
mann, Gesetze, I, 656, 657) about the time of King John that certain 
officials for the various counties ought to be elected in pleno folkemot at 
the beginning of the Calends of October possibly preserves a tradition of 
a semiannual session of the county held at this period. 

61 Rotult Hundredorum, I, 34, 331. Presumably this value is based either 
on the sum which would ordinarily purchase for the individual exemption 
from the duty of appearing or which would pay his amercement if he were 
absent. 

62 Rotuli Literarum Clausarum, I, 430, 431. 

63 Below, p. 152. 

64 Close Rolls of Henry III, 1234-1237, p. 457. 

85 Annals Monastici, I, 331; Cam, Studies in the Hundred Rolls, 92-93. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 101 


ordinates recurs in the reign of Edward I.°* The barons on their 
part seem to have taken the stand that claims to suit of shire 
and hundred advanced by the king’s officials were novel. Among 
the baronial grievances enumerated in 1258 is that of exaction 
of new suits of shires.*” One question, however, was being settled 
in the interest of the landholder. Toward the end of the century 
there was still some difficulty over the exaction of suit from each 
of the heirs to an estate from which previously only one suit was 
due.°* But the Provisions of Westminster in 1259 had set up the 
general principle that heirs should render no more suit than was 
originally due.®® 

Certainly not all men of the shire, nor even all freeholders, 
were bound to attend its session.’ The theory that they were 
so required seems to be presented first by the law writers of the 
Tudor and Stuart periods. But there was clearly a definite 
body of suitors. These had to be summoned to each session, and 
the monk of Barnwell shows that the sheriff of Cambridgeshire 
kept a list of them at the castle.“ Moreover, in a legal sense 
they constituted the county, and from them the sheriff collected 
the amercement imposed upon it by the king’s justices for false 
judgment or other fault.*? The principles upon which suit was 
said to rest were so diverse’® that in its enforcement sheriffs must 
have been guided entirely by the common law rule of usage. As 
early as the reign of Henry I it is recorded that summons was 
issued seven days in advance of the session’* except in cases of 

66 As in Rot. Hund., II, 266. But see below, p. 224. 

67 Stubbs, Select Charters, 385, sec. 24. 

68 Rotuli Parliamentorum, I, 12. 

69 Statutes of the Realm, I, 8. 

70 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, I, 538, 542. 


71 Memoranda de Bernewell, ed. Clark, p. 238. 

72 In Close Rolls, 1227-31, p. 31, Robert le Savage and his men are not 
to be distrained as participants in a misericordia if it be found that at the 
time it was incurred they did not owe suit of county. Cf. Pollock and Mait- 
land, History of English Law (1899), I, 549. 

73 Ibid., I, 5387-545. 

74 Leges Henrici, 7:4, 41:2; Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 553, 567. 


102 Unversity of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14 


emergency. Even at this time it is obvious that the attendance 
followed two distinct requirements. Certain persons were sum- 
moned by name, and certain territorial units sent representa- 
tives.*° Concerning the former group the Statute of Merton” 
enacted that any freeman who owed suit at the county or other 
local courts might freely make his attorney do those suits for him. 

The earliest theory of suit of county which is presented, that 
of the writer of the Leges Henrici,” is purely feudal. In his 
opinion those who attend are terraruwm domint, whether they be 
lay or ecclesiastical lords. Nor does the writer shrink from 
including under this designation local officials and even manorial 
reeves (tungrevr). All these are present to take diligent heed so 
that failure to punish the wicked, or the harm of grievances, or 
the wonted ruin of judgment-finders, shall not rend the poor. 
This view, which regards all suitors as landholding lords, appears 
to be explained by the same writer a little farther on in a famous 
passage.”* It rests upon the assumption that all the suitors are 
either feudal landholders who acquit their land of this service 
or else their substitutes. The king’s barons and others of the 
county by their attendance, so the writer holds, perform this 
service. But this may be done also if the lord is represented by 
his steward; and if both lord and steward are absent, the reeve, 
priest, and four better men of the vill are then to be present on 
behalf of all those who have not been summoned by name. 

This statement does not convince the reader for more than one 
reason. As Maitland shows,*® minutc homines certainly owed 
suit and served as doomsmen at this time; moreover, the theory 
can account for the various small freeholders who attended the 
county court in this reign, as he points out, only by a vast 
amount of license in the terms used. Nor does it carry complete 

To [Dt 1 tt. 

76 Cap. 10. 

77 Leges Henrici, 7:2. 


78 [bid 127. 
79 Pollock and Maitland, I, 546 and note 3. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 103 


conviction in setting up the view that the representation of the 
vill through the reeve, priest, and four villains is merely a sub- 
stitute for the attendance of the lord. The form of the Domes- 
day inquest®® suggests a substantial administrative reason for 
territorial as opposed to tenurial suit. But the Domesday inquest 
was held by the kine’s special agents under special authority. It 
is impossible to deny on a basis of available evidence that the 
relation between the two types of suit as set forth in twelfth 
century juristic style held in the thirteenth century. To be sure 
the activity of four neighboring vills in judicial matters is at 
least as old as the reign of Henry I.*! These sometimes appeared 
upon special summons in the county court, but probably as a 
rule merely at coroners’ inquests elsewhere.*? The Assize of 
Clarendon** held the sheriff to make inquest for the presentment 
of criminals before himself through four men of each vill and 
twelve men of each hundred, a duty which might be fulfilled in 
the county court no less than in the sheriff’s tourn.’* Certainly 
some presentments made in the hundred court might not go to 
the justices until they had come also before the county court.*° 
The coroner’s presence at shiremotes also implies presentments. 
It is fairly clear, however, that the reeve and four men of every 
vill were not summoned to the county court except to meet the 
justices in eyre. It was only before them that systematic present- 
ment of all the misdeeds of the county was made. This is implied 
in the fact that the hundred was not represented at the ordinary 
county court by twelve men, according to the terms of the Assize 

80 It is to be remembered that not only was each vill represented by the 


reeve, priest and six villains, but that each hundred was represented, as 
Round has shown (Feudal England, 118), by eight men. 


81 Charles Gross in Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, Selden Soc., Introd., p. xxxix. 

82 See below, p. 113. Bracton, Rolls Ser., II, 281; Select Coroners’ Rolls 
(Selden Soc.), passim. 

83 See. 1. 

84 It appears that this has sometimes escaped recognition. Cf. F. M. 
Powicke in Magna Charta Commemoration Essays (Royal Histor. Soc), 112. 

85 Sel. Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soe., I, no. 15. 


104 University of California Publications in History |Vou. 14 


of Clarendon, but often only by a reeve or some other indi- 
vidual.*® Ordinarily the question whether a vill was represented 
at the county court and how it was represented must have been 
a mere matter of usage. | 

How the men of the vills were assembled for the special busi- 
ness of the royal pleas is shown by the mandates which from 
the earlier years of King Henry III were sent to the sheriff 
ordering him to assemble the county in an unusually full session 
to meet the itinerant justices. The well-known writs issued on 
these occasions*’ show that suit follows several principles. The 
sheriff is to summon the prelates of his bailiwick, including 
archbishops, bishops, and abbots; also the laymen who hold land 
by feudal tenure, the earls, barons, and knights; also the libere 
tenentes; also four law-worthy men and the reeve of each vill 
and twelve law-worthy burghers of each borough. ‘It should be 
added of course that the presence of twelve men from each 
hundred to make presentment on such occasions was necessary. 

The presence of a mixed body of knights, freeholders, and 
villains at ordinary sessions of the county is today assumed.** 
A lord might do suit by his steward, and presumably any free 
man by his attorney, although the latter principle offers some 
difficulty.®® It often seems to be taken for granted that the mag- 
nates and greater personages of the county will not attend in 
person. But in some counties holders of baronies actually did 
suit at county court after county court.°° <A near view of the 


86 Rotult Hundredoruwm, II, 203, 205, 207; Pollock and Maitland, I, 558. 
The four men who seem to represent the wapentake in the time of Henry I 
(Monasticon, VI, pt. 3, 1272, no. 20) are only for the king’s pleas and 
counties. Thus they are the precursors of the twelve men who represent the 
hundred according to the Assize of Clarendon. 

87 As in Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, I, 403; ef. Bracton, Rolls Ser., II, 
188. 

88 ‘But in general the assembly was formed of miscellaneous elements ; 
there were tenants by military service and socage tenants, tenants in chief 
of the king and tenants of mesne lords, great men and small men’? (Pollock 
and Maitland, I, 543). 

89 Below, p. 224. 

90 Three Northumberland Assize Rolls, Surtees Soc., 327-328. 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 105 


county court of Lincolnshire shows the stewards and knights in 
the foreground.®* It has been held on what seems to be good 
evidence that the county court of Yorkshire consisted primarily 
of the stewards of tenants-in-chief.°? The Magna Charta of 1215 
shows that knights and libere tenentes were expected to be 
present.°* There is also sufficient evidence that villains were on 
hand to do suit for at least some of the vills®* and others to 
represent manors or even parcels of land®® which owed suit. 
Moreover, local baliffs for the villages, usually villains, were 
present. The presence of coroners as well as bailiffs was a neces- 
sity.°° It was possible for a coroner to procure release from his 
personal obligation to do suit in another county because his 
attendance in the county for which he held office was assured by 
his office.°7 


6. THE COUNTY COURT AT WORK 


Glimpses which permit visualization of the county court are 
rarely obtainable, but a few are possible. These come most 
frequently through cases of disagreement between sheriff and 
suitors, a notable instance being that in Lincolnshire in 1226 
presented in some detail by Maitland.®* Here it appears that, 
when he was ready to begin, the sheriff called the suitors about 
him and took his seat to preside. He then called up the causes 
which he had set for this term. After he had held pleas from 
early morning until evening seven score cases remained for lack 
of daylight. At Oxford in the same year one man who was a 


91 Bracton’s Note Book, no. 1730. 
92 Pollock and Maitland, I, 543. 


93 Sec. 19. In the time of Edward I exchequer officials were said to be 
exempt (Red Book of the Exchequer, III, 826). 


94 Rotult Hundredorum, I, 205; below, pp. 199, 200. 

95 Six hides, five birgates, eight bovates or a quarter of a knight’s fee 
(abid., I, 25, 34, 37, 331). 

96 Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls Ser., II, 424. 

97 Lit. Claus., I, 423, 598; Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, Selden Soce., p. xxi. 


98 Bracton’s Note Book, no. 1730. For the story, Pollock and Maitland, 
I, 549-550. 


106 University of California Publications in History [Vou 14 


party to a suit stood by the castle gate all day awaiting the 
appearance of his adversary.®® This continuance of the session 
until nightfall is mentioned elsewhere. In Northumberland 
allusion is made to proceedings which have occurred within the 
four benches, as if these were arranged in the form of a hollow 
Square and the active judgment-finders seated upon them, a 
usage apparently prevalent in local courts of this type.’°° At the 
Lincoln county court as elsewhere’®! the opinions which carry 
weight are those of the better folk, the transactions mentioned 
being those of knights and stewards. In some counties, presum- 
ably those of the west, there was a small group consisting of four 
or six influential persons called buzones or buzones wdiciorum, 
in one case seen to be knights, upon whose nod is said to depend 
the decision of the others.‘°? These or some group like them 
were apparently the foremost to arise and propose the judgments 
to be rendered. The suitors were presumed to know the law and 
to act accordingly. Fear that the king’s justices would amerce 
them for any error was a deterrent from rashness.'°? In the 
county court of Somerset in 1225 the sheriff was accused of 
favoring one of the parties in a land case, whereupon all the 
suitors withdrew except two or three. But the sheriff none the 
less at the hour of vespers proceeded to declare judgment and 
award seisin.'°* But county courts were not always so tractable. 
In 1273 a sheriff, ordered at the instance of the exchequer of the 
Jews to have record of an outlawry made, reported diligence in 
charging that the record be made, but he had been able in no 
wise to induce the suitors to do this.'° ; 


99 Bracton’s Note Book, no. 212. 

100 Northumberland Assiz Rolls, Surtees Soe., p. 196; Pollock and Mait- 
land, I, 556, note 1. 

101 Below, p. 110. 


102 Kyre of Kent, Selden Soc., I, pp. xxvii-xxx: a review of existing 
knowledge on the subject. 


103 Below, p. 108. 
104 Somerset Pleas, Somerset Record Soc., 61-63. 
105 Rigg, Cal. Plea Rolls, Exchequer of the Jews, II, 125. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 107 


This county assemblage was a curiously mixed one, and it 
transacted a striking variety of business, using forms which were 
quaint and antiquated. The persons present might represent 
every class in society, nor is it conceivable that any class was 
turned away. All might do suit, and all were likely to appear 
upon one kind of business or another. The whole body heard the 
royal proclamations or sometimes grants or important statutes. 
It had apparently long been bilingual. A Latin grant as late as 
1295 was read in the county court of Essex both in French and 
in English.1°° The sheriff was ordered to take administrative 
action in certain matters de voluntate et consilio eorum de 
comitatu.t°? Causes were begun by oral plaint, and individuals 
appeared to show their wounds and accuse those who had injured 
them. Persons summoned to respond in suits presented their 
essoins. Some matters were still settled by duel. The court 
issued orders for attachments and the enforcement of its process. 
There were sometimes heated discussions, not infrequent quarrels 
with the sheriff, and occasionally disorder. Apparently the old 
idea of the special gravity of offenses committed in the assembly 
was perpetuated. <A certain man who in 1280 struck a bailiff 
in the county court of Devon was remanded to manueaptors to 
produce him? before the justices at Westminster. 


7. JUDGMENT IN THE COUNTY COURT 


The theory that the body of suitors found judgment in the 
county court, the sheriff merely pronouncing their decisions, is 
established by the fact that when they found a false judgment 
they were collectively amerced by the king’s justices.1°? They had 
to know law. When they were in doubt about it, In one case at 


106 Below, p. 173. 


107 As in Stubbs, Constnl. History, II (ed. 4, 238. Cf. ibid., 234, n. 5: 
de assensu ejusdem comitatus). 


108 Close Rolls, 1227-1231, p. 308. Cf. Hyre of Kent (Selden Soc.), I, 
185. 


109 Below, p. 163. 


108 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


least, they asked the sheriff to obtain the opinion of the king’s 
court.''° There is, however, difference of opinion concerning the 
activity of the lower classes, especially the villains. Did these 
participate directly and if so what weight was attached to their 
opinion ? 

Upon these matters the earliest authority, the writer of the 
Leges Henrict Primi, gives a very positive answer, but his reason- 
ing suggests that he may be setting forth expediency from the 
exchequer viewpoint rather than law or practice. He says that 
only those who hold lands by free tenure may be tudices. Judg- 
ment-finders are men of the county (barones) who are land- 
holders. Villani and other viles et 1nopes persons are not to be 
numbered inter legum judices,""* apparently because they are 
liable to amercement if they fail in doing justice and may in that 
ease forfeit neither property of their own nor that of their lord. 
But, since the king’s justices did continully levy amercements on 
villains both in the time of Henry I as well as in later reigns,*? 
the impossibility of such an exaction is by no means established. 
What follows instead is that the lord is legally responsible for 
the amercement incurred by villains who represent his land, and 
desires that, just so far as possible, these be restrained from 
taking part in judgments. Yet in the time of Henry I minut 
homines did act as judgment-finders, and in the thirteenth cen- 
tury a lord and his men are mentioned together as the persons 
from whom the sheriff takes steps to collect a share of the 
common amercement which has been imposed upon the county.%7* 


110 Royal Letters of Henry III, I, 102-103. Here after the Lex defen- 
sionis had been awarded in a case concerning averia, the question arose con- 
cerning the employment of a champion. The county court was especially 
careful because the person whose interests were concerned was a great man 
and a baron of the king. 

111 Leges Henrici, 29:1, 29:1la, 29:1b. 

112 According to the Pipe Roll of Henry I (p. 28) even upon minuti 
judices et juratores comitatus. The usual amercement of a tithing of course 
fell upon villains. ; 

118 Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, 1227-1231, p. 31 (the case of 
Robert Savage). 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 109 


The inference to be drawn, therefore, is that the lands which 
owe suit are responsible, whether represented in the county court 
by their lord, his steward, or his villains.1‘* From this point of 
view villains have legal status as suitors who are assumed to be 
responsible for what is done. 

But the fundamental question, so far as actual practice goes, 
is how the sheriff collects the opinion of the assembled suitors. 
In case of a division does he accept the view of the greater 
number or does the will of the better classes prevail? Upon this 
point the Leges Henrict have been found obscure, if not contra- 
dictory.*’® Sheriffs had to use discretion to get business trans- 
acted, and no doubt several considerations entered into the 
matter. But it is significant that in an affair affecting an election 
in the county court the king’s council decided emphatically in 
the year 1303 that the better quality of those suitors who 
favored a given candidate was to prevail against the greater 
number of those opposed and in whose favor the election had 
been decided.**® There is much in the later history of parlia- 
mentary elections which is in accord with this theory.''’ The 
usage of presentment juries both in the king’s court and the 
sheriff’s tourn seems to give villains an active part in pro- 
ceedings only in subordination to the free men who are 
present.14* While there are some opposing considerations to be 
gathered from the usage of local courts,'!® yet the arrangement 
of the four benches for the active suitors,'?° the position of the 


114 Cf. Pollock and Maitland, I, 540-541. 

115 See ibid., I, 552. The words of the Leges Henrict (31:2), vincat 
sententia meliorum et cut justitia magis acquieverit, seem to the writer dis- 
tinetly to favor the judgment of the better classes. 

11462. T. Rk. Memoranda Roll 73, m. 40 d; HK. R&R. Memorando Roll 76, 
m. $l. 

117 Stubbs, Constitutional History, III, 419-420. 

118 As illustrated in the Hyre of Kent (Selden Soe.), I, pp. xli-xlii; also 
the writer’s Frankpledge System, 124-125. 

119 Vinogradoff, Villainage, 188-196. 

120 Produxit quemdam audientem et quemdam intelligentem qui fuerunt 


infra quattuor bancos et praedictae loquelae interfuerunt (Northumberland 
Assize Rolls, Surtees Soc., 196). 


110 Unversity of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


buzones in the court, and the usage of consenting by acclamation 
to judgments imposed must have relegated the villain to the 
outer edge of the assembly where his voice was at best a feeble 
one. Some statements from the thirteenth century certainly 
imply that suitors of standing were necessary’?! in rendering 
judgments and that villains were of practically no real import- 
ance. <A certain record of the year 1273 seems to imply that 
they alone found them. A sheriff at London, being ordered to 
have record made in full county court of a certain process in 
outlawry, to prove his diligence in the matter reported that he 
had charged the knights and freeholders of the county to make 
such a record.’?? Since record was a recital of proceedings 
agreed upon from the memory of those present when they trans- 
pired, it seems to follow that in London the knights and free- 
holders had pronounced judgment. The justices in Northumber- 
land, moreover, in taking certain action upon the representation 
of the county, did so de consensu totius comitatus tam militum 
quam aliorum liberorum hominum de comitatu rsto.%** 

But even if the villain in matters affecting judgment be 
accorded the position of a fully qualified suitor, this by no means 
implies his participation in all judgments. Maitland has urged 
the point??? that the principle of trial by peers would exclude 
him when the interests of his betters were at stake. One may, 
for instance, hardly conceive that a lord’s claim against someone 
who held his fugitive villain was settled by a bench on which 
villains sat. Thirteenth-century law clearly recognized the 
principle of exclusion of suitors who were disqualified in a given 
case. Even in the time of Henry I a baron of the county when 

121 Concerning a suit the king’s attorney says, Ht quoad sectam facien- 
dam dicit quod de jure commune facere debet sectam per se vel per sene- 


schallum suum ad judicia. ... Ita quod placita comitatus non deficiant pro 
defectu sectatorum (Placita de Quo Warranto, 4). 


122 Rigg, Cal. of Plea Rolls, Exchequer of the Jews, II, 125. 
123 Northumberland Assize Rolls (Surtees Soc.), 208. 


124 Pollock and Maitland, I, 552. There might be no judgments by 
strangers; moreover parties sometimes elected from among the suitors a 
few to decide their case.. 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 111 


impleaded in the county court might restrain his men from par- * 
ticipating in the judgment.'?® The Statute of Westminster in 
1275 threatens with a grievous penalty the sheriff who permits 
a maintainer of pleas otherwise than as attorney for his lord to 
render or declare judgment in the county court, whether he be 
steward of a great lord or any other.’*° It may be assumed that 
a sheriff who had the power to declare that some free men should 
not pass judgment in a case, had a similar authority so far as 
villains were concerned. 

The judgments which were found by the suitors and pro- 
nounced by the sheriff in the earlier local courts in England had 
to do largely with the allotment of proof. As the phrase runs, 
a man is adjudged in the county court ad legem suam facien- 
dam." This lex might be compurgation, the ordeal, or the 
duel.‘*® The last-named was the usual method of proof in land 
eases decided in the county court.’*® It was also permitted as 
a refutation of personal accusations.'*® In accusations of thefts 
of small amount compugation was assigned by the assembled 
suitors as late as the thirteenth century.'** This and the waging 
of law in accordance therewith for centuries remained the tradi- 
tional order in minor civil suits.1°? When the witness of the 

125 Leges Henvrici, 30. 

126 Statutes of the Realm, I, 35, cap. 33. 

127 Pleas for the County of Gloucester, ed. Maitland, no. 20. 

128 In Domesday Book (1, 44 d) the villant, vilis plebis and praeposite 
wish to sustain their testimony per sacramentum aut per dei judicium. But 


the witnesses who are opposed nolunt accipere legem nisi regis (1.e., the 
duel, cf. Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 483-484). Cf. McKechnie, Magna Carta 
(1914), 379. 

129 Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 524. 

130 But in the time of Henry III it was still doubtful whether the parties 
might offer champions or not (Royal Letters of Henry III, Rolls Ser., I, 
102-103). 

131 Pleas for County of Gloucester (ed. Maitland), no. 20. 

132 [bid., no. 99: Ricardus vadiavit I legem contra eum quod non detinutt 
ea contra plegium. Cf. Dalton, Office and Authority of Sheriffs (London, 
1700), p. 412. Dalton specifies as being tried thus actions concerning 
debts, detinue of chattels, assumpsit, covenant, nuisances, replevying of 
beasts, and trespasses when the debt or damage is under 40s. The plea 
de namio vetito might be defended by wager of law in the county court, 
though not in the king’s court (Britton, ed. Nichols, I, 141). 


112 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


county as a whole was disputed elsewhere it might offer proof 
by combat.'** This assembly was also called to pass upon many 
matters from pronouncement of outlawry down to a decision of 
the next step in a civil case. 

The form of the decision sanctioned by the assembled suitors 
was that proposed by one of their number. This is seen in the 
fact that a maintainer of pleas is forbidden to act in the county 
court not merely in rendering but also in declaring judgment. 
When the sheriff asked for judgment in a case, some person 
proposed a doom!** much as one makes a motion today in a 


72 


public meeting. ‘‘Probably any of the judges,’’ says Maitland, 
‘‘may in the old fashion deem a doom which a murmur of assent 
will make the judgment of the court.’’!*> It was evidently this 
procedure which gave to the bozones iwdiciorum their prominence 


and importance. 


8. OFFENSES INCLUDED IN THE SHERIFF’S PEACE 


The ancient agenda of the county court appear to have had 
little to do with criminal law. After the Norman Conquest there 
was, apparently, more dependence upon this body for the main- 
tenance of order. Glanville mentions a few minor offenses'*® 
which regularly came before the sheriff. Of these certain thefts 
are especially designated. At first sight this creates perplexity, 
because theft appears in the assize rolls as a capital offense which 
is tried before the justices. But a Gloucestershire case early in 
the reign of Henry III offers a solution of the problem. <A cause 
involving the taking of hay to the value of five shillings is seen 
to belong to the county. When the accuser wishes to make the 
matter appear as a breach of the king’s peace he asserts that the 
offense is robbery and that the property taken is of the value of 

133 Bracton’s Note Book, 243; Pollock and Maitland, I, 537. 

134 Bracton’s Note Book, no. 1730: Et unum judicium fecit idem Thomas. 


135 [bid., III, 567, note 1. 
136 Glanville, liber I, cap. 2. 


1926 Morris: The Early English County Court dd 


forty shillings.’*’ In its earlier and less important aspect this 
same offense is said to belong to the sheriff’s peace. Bracton, 
like Glanville, shows that to this also belong affrays, the inflic- 
tion of stripes and wounds, and similar matters through failure 
of manorial courts to do justice, unless the complainant alleges 
breach of the king’s peace or charges felony. He also shows that 
some offenses belong to the manorial courts unless it is declared 
similarly that they are in the sheriff’s peace.*®> But nothing in 
the sheriff’s peace involved loss of life or limb, for only 
pecuniary penalties followed conviction before his tribunal. 


9. BUSINESS RELATING TO PLEAS OF THE CROWN 


So far as pleas of the crown were concerned, proceedings in 
the county court, at least from the time of Henry II, could be 
only preliminary. From the year 1166 sheriffs were required to 
see that presentment of serious offenses was made before them. 
In the county court as well as in the tourn the sheriff might and 
frequently did summon before himself the men of a hundred 
and the men of four neighboring vills'*® for the purpose of this 
inquest. This inquest was hardly systematic and general in the 
county court as it was in the tourn of the hundreds or in the 
session of the county held before the justices. Yet it is certain 
that on some occasions there appeared in the county court crim- 
inals, those who led them thither'*® and those who were, or 
undertook to be, mainpernors for them.'*t Confessions were 
sometimes made here, and suspected persons taken into custody 
by the sheriff. A curious grant of King John to the county of 

137 Pleas for County of Gloucester, no. 20. 


138 Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls Ser., II, 540-542. 


139... . cum presenctones Corone facere fuerunt in comitatu per quattuor 
villas propinquiores et per quattuor homines cujuslibet ville si plenarie non 
venerint amerciantur in comitatu cum solummodo deberent amerciart coram 
justictis itinerantibus et sic duplicem habent penam (Rotuli Hundredorum, 
II, 29). Cf. Cal. Pat. Rolls, 1247-1258, pp. 607-608, and below, pp. 199, 200. 


140 Rotuli Hundredorum, II, 116. 
141 Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, 34. Below, pp. 158, 159. 


114 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


Devon specified that prisoners were to be admitted to pledge by 
counsel of the county court, so they might not be detained any 
longer through the hatred or exaction of the sheriff.14? 

Crime, however, was regularly prosecuted in the county court 
by the old-time process of private accusation, technically known 
as appeal.'** This was a slow and troublesome procedure because 
it required pledges for prosecution't and the attendance of the 
accuser session by session. If the prosecution broke down he was 
hable,**® but at the same time the defendant was allowed until 
the fourth session to appear. In the time of the writer of Britton 
the nearest of kin still prosecuted, and their right of action lasted 
a year anda day. The plaintiff at the county court who wished 
to begin his plaint had to find two pledges to prosecute.**® Of 
the two matters for which a woman might make such appeal 
against a man, a wrong or violence done her or the death of her 
husband, there are many recorded instances.***7 Appeals of 
felony might be sued in the county court, so it would appear, 
as late as the Stuart period.‘*® Wounds were exhibited before 
the assembled county**® as also before the hundred. Knights 
were sometimes sent on complaint to view wounds and ascertain 
the seriousness of the offense involved. Appeals of wounding 
and beating, or of mayhem, arson, and theft, were made in con- 
siderable numbers.?°° A man might wage duel in the county 
"142 Rotuli Chartarum, I, 1382; Cartae Antiquae, Pub. Rec. Office, 10, no. 4. 

143 See cases which appear below, pp. 153-156, 165. 

144 Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, p. 22. 


145 Britton, ed. Nichols, I, 109-110. 

146 Northumberland Assize Rolls, 365. For making a false appeal one 
might be imprisoned (ibid., 367). After 1285 the appellor in a felony case 
was liable to a year’s imprisonment if the person he accused was acquitted 
in the king’s court (Statutes of the Realm, I, 81). 

147 Below, pp. 154-156, 165. See Select Coroners’ Rolls (Selden Soe.), 
64-65, for the exact words of such an appeal. 

148 Dalton, Office and Authority of Sheriffs (1700), p. 25. 

149 Sel. Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soc., I, no. 4. Pleas for Gloucester, 
no. 434; Select Bills in Eyre no. 97 (here a woman is conveyed in a eart to 
the court so her injury may be seen) ; Bracton (Rolls Ser.), I1, 288-290. 


150 Below, p. 155. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 1D 


court against his accuser.‘°' A fair amount of detail concerning 
eriminal affairs which was recorded by the coroners to be pre- 
sented before the itinerant justices for final action bore on 
matters that had come out in the county court. 

Pleas of the crown were from the time of Richard I preserved 
on the coroners’ roll. <A sheriff is mentioned as having such a 
roll of his own also in the time of King John,’*” and by the first 
Statute of Westminster was required to keep one as a check upon 
the record of the coroners. Aside from appeals of felony, pre- 
sentment of Englishry, regularly recorded in the coroners’ rolls 
both in the earlier’®* and the later years of the century,'** 
occurred in the county court, as well as in the eyre and at the 
coroner’s inquest. Here also might originate another item found 
on the coroners’ rolls when property of criminals was appraised 
and turned over to the sheriff.1°* | 

The business of the shire assembly made for the maintenance 
of the peace also through some further proceedings. Men who 
had made threats were placed under sureties'®® by the sheriff, 
who is thus said to give peace in the court for the protection of 
the complainant.’®** Men prosecuted for crime by appeal were 
attached when they appeared.’®* In 1263, just at the beginning 
of the Barons’ War, the sheriff of two shires was ordered to 
receive in full county court the oath of allegiance to the king.’*? 

In rare instances the king’s writ authorized the sheriff to 
dispose of a criminal case here by jury trial.‘°% Some sheriffs 

151 Sel. Pleas of the Crown, nos. 126, 172. 

152 Ibid., no. 62. 

153 Pleas for Gloucester, no. 471. 

154 Below, p. 153. 


155 Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, p. 7. This was likely to be done by the vill 
before the coroner (Coroners’ Rolls, P. R. O., no. 255, pt. 6). 


156 Coroners’ Rolls, P. R. O., no. 3, m. 1. 

157 Sel. Pleas of the Crown, nos. 73, 121. 

158 Hyre of Kent (Selden Soc.), 1,108. |, 

159 Calendar of Patent Rolls, 1247-1258, p. 11. 

160 Select Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soe., no. 186. 


116 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


continued, moreover, without authority to hold pleas of the 
crown despite the prohibition of this in Magna Charta.’®%. In 
1280 the sheriff of Westmoreland and his bailiff were forbidden 
by the king’s council any longer to deliver prisoners and gaols 
without the king’s writ.1°? But it is possible that this right had 
formerly been a special concession due to border conditions.1% 
The manifest thief might be adjudged to death in the county 
court as a matter of regular procedure.‘** This power was of 
little importance, however, for such offenders, in some parts of 
England at least, were summarily dispatched whenever an officer 
of the law and his posse overtook them.'*® The pronouncement 
of outlawry against the offender who failed to appear as required 
occurred in the county court as of old. In the thirteenth century 
this was done pursuant to a royal writ requiring that the person 
in question be placed upon the exigent and formally demanded 
session by session until in default of appearance, at the fifth 
successive session,** the sentence of outlawry was declared.1% 


161 Cf, Cam, Studies in Hundred Rolls, 92 (15). 
162 Cal. Close Rolls, 1279-1288, p. 109. 
163 Cf, Lapsley, County Palatine of Durham, 83. 


164 Pleas of the Crown, County of Gloucester, no. 217; Bracton’s Note 
Book, no. 67. The jail-breaker might also be condemned to death in the 
eounty court (Inquisitions Miscellaneous, Chancery I, no. 2167) if he had 
been imprisoned on suspicion of felony (Hyre of Kent, Selden Soe., I, 80). 
The sheriff of Rutlandshire who caused the manifest thief brought before 
the county court to be punished first by the piercing of his ear, then by the 
loss of it, was called to task by the king’s justices (Victoria County History, 
Rutland, I, 172). 


165 Northumberland Assize Rolls, 70; Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, 29. 


166 This was the rule in King John’s time, as shown by the well-known 
statement (Coggeshall, Rolls Ser., p. 165) of the king’s irregularity in caus- 
ing Eustace de Vesty and Robert Fitz Walter to be outlawed in comitatibus 
tertio requisitos. Cf. Rot. Lit. Claus., I, 165-166. 


167 See below, p. 150. Outlawry proclaimed in the time of Edward I 
before the itinerant justices (Rot. Hund., II, 206) was no doubt reckoned 
as outlawry in the county court. But George B. Adams has shown that prior 
to the first third of the century there were the two methods (Yale Law 
Journal, XXVIII, 458, n. 23). Cf. Bracton (Rolls Ser., II, 314-321) for the 
relation of the justices to this process. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court veh 


From the time of Edward I the same process was employed if the 
defendant failed to respond in a civil case.1°® When the king 
pardoned outlawry the sheriff, again, was ordered by writ to 
proclaim its annulment in the county court.'® 


10. CIVIL JURISDICTION 


' The independent jurisdiction of the county court in matters 
affecting the civil claims and property rights of subject as 
against subject was still important in the year 1300. It had been 
limited, presumably by interpretation of the king’s courts, in 
personal actions to causes in which the amount involved was 
forty shillings or less,'”° but forty shillings at this time was no 
inconsiderable sum. The possibility of settling cases by simple 
procedure in one’s own county had its attraction. The work of 
the court was clearly not so heavy as in the earlier years of 
Henry III when scores of cases might come before a single ses- 
sion. Some suits all along had been instituted here with the 
idea of continuing them in the king’s court, especially in 
instances wherein one of the parties placed himself on the grand 
assize..7* But many matters were still settled by the county 
assembly. It is too likely to be forgotten that when the justices 
of the peace assumed their duties in the fourteenth century they 
had no eivil jurisdiction and that down to the nineteenth century 
the county court was the usual local tribunal readily accessible 
to litigants'” in lesser cases. 

In enumerating these pleas which the sheriff might hear with- 
out the king’s writ it may be recalled that the county had for- 
merly been one principal forum for the disposition of matters 

168 See below, p. 149.. 

169 See below, p. 163. 

170 Pollock and Maitland, I, 553-554. 

171 Glanville, II, cap. 8. 


172 Dalton, Office and Authority of Sheriffs (1700), 412; Webb, English 
Local Government: Parish and County, 290. 


118 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


involving land, and that, although feudal jurisdiction after the 
Norman Conquest had reduced if not abolished that of the county 
in such eases, Henry I especially assigned to it to be settled by 
duel land cases which could come before no seigniorial court.**? 
Glanville states also that pleas of right came before the county 
court when lords’ courts were shown to have failed to do right.*™ 
But the reforms of Henry II had established the principle that 
no man might be impleaded concerning his free tenement or 
service without the king’s writ of right. Writs therefore became 
necessary to the institution of much litigation in the county. 
Although it is clear that many such cases were brought into the 
county court in order that they might be transferred to the king’s 
court, yet these might be decided in the county, as in the past, 
provided one of the parties to a suit did not, in order to avoid 
trial by duel, elect the jury procedure of the grand assize and 
thus effect automatic transfer of the matter before the justices. 
Fairly important claims involving land still came before the 
sheriff in the thirteenth century,'” and seisin was still awarded 
by the suitors.’7® Although land cases had to be instituted by 
writ and could not be begun merely by plaint, the time was far 
off when the writ of Justicies was the sole instrument of author- 
ization which permitted the sheriff to proceed. 

A great part of the pleas which continued to come before the 
sheriffs and suitors without intervention of the king’s writ were 
pleas of trespass and debt wherein neither the goods carried 
away in trespass nor the debt demanded exceeded forty shil- 
lings.1** Lords also resorted to replevin proceedings in the 
county courts to collect their rents, although the Statute of 
Westminster in 1285 provided that when they could not thus 

173 Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 524; Glanville, XII, 1. 

174 Glanville, XIT, 2. 

175 For some examples, Northumberland Assize Rolls, 186. 


176 See Somerset Pleas, Somerset Record Soc., 61-63. 
177 Britton, ed. F. M. Nichols, I, 25. 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 119 


obtain justice by the usual procedure a writ should be issued to 
remove the case before the justices.17* Before the sheriff also 
came cases concerning beasts taken and wrongfully detained by 
way of gage. The ubiquitous plea de namio vetito'”® in some of 
its aspects belonged to the king’s courts, or to the writ jurisdic- 
tion of the county court, for it might deal with offenses tanta- 
mount to larceny. But there were many local complaints con- 
cerning unjust caption and detention of beasts which had to 
come immediately before the sheriff who had power to deliver 
the animals in question.'*° Even in the seventeenth century, 
so Dalton shows, a sheriff upon plaint without the king’s writ 
might hold the plea de averis captis et detentis.1** A final con- 
cord of the year 1240 between the bishop of Worcester and the 
sheriff of the county agrees that in case the bishop within his 
liberty or his bailiffs neglect upon plaint to deliver namia taken 
and the matter comes to the county court, the sheriff vice regis 
shall direct the bailiff in pleno comitatu to deliver them, and if 
he fails the sheriff at the next county per judices comitatus will 
through one of his bailiffs take charge of them and attach the 
transgressor.'®” 

Besides this ancient surviving jurisdiction of the county 
eourt there was another assumed only when the sheriff had the 
king’s writ. This was fairly extensive, for in many instances it 
involved merely the suing out of a writ de cursu at the chancery 
by a litigant, his presentation of it to the sheriff,'** and his pro- 
vision of security for prosecution. Even in the seventeenth cen- 
tury pleas wherein the debt or damage was above forty shillings 

178 Statutes of the Realm, I, 73, cap. 2. 


179 Concerning this see Pollock and Maitland, II, 577. 


180 The subsistence of the animals is often involved. Britton, Nichols ed., 
I, 1386; see below, pp. 156-157. 

181 Dalton, Office and Authority of Sheriffs (ed. of 1700), 25. But this 
plea might me removed by writ into the king’s bench when it involved 
breach of the peace (Britton, ed. Nichols, I, 136). 

182 Register of Worcester Priory, Camden Soe., p. 16la. 

183 As in Britton, ed. F. M. Nichols, I, 407. 


120 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


might be tried in the county court by writ of Justicies.18* Appar- 
ently suits involving more than forty shillings were at that time 
being separated into several suits to bring them within the rule. 
Some writs which might be determined in a lord’s court, through 
his default, were transferred to the county court.1®> Proceedings 
under the writ of right were instituted in the county court and 
ordinarily continued there,'** unless the matter was settled by the 
grand assize. Thus the procedure of essoins explained by Glan- 
ville was effective in the county courts.18’ If a warrantor was 
called in the county court, however, it had no power to summon 
him without the king’s writ.18* The transfer of certain inquests 
to the king’s courts was avoided as late as the first years of 
Edward III by the action de frisca forcia, or fresh force, which 
- was pleaded before the sheriff, but in the same form as novel 
disseisin. This was permitted in the time of Edward I in some 
regions because of their distance from the king’s courts and 
because the tenements of many were not sufficient to Te their 
seeking the usual writ.1*® 

Associated also with the idea that it was the king’s affair to 
protect seisin was the fact that fugitive villains were still claimed 
in the county court with their goods and sequels, though only in 
pursuance of the appropriate writ.’°° But if the defendant 
denied his villainage and obtained the writ de libertate probanda 
the case was removed to the king’s court.**t The county court 
which undertook to pass upon the question of freedom might 


184 Greenwood, County Judicatures (1668), 5, 39; Dalton, Office of 
Sheriff (1700), 4138, 424. Cf. Glanville, IX, 9-10, for early use of this writ. 


185 Bracton, De Legibus, V, 90. 

186 Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls Ser., V, 96, 98. 
187 [bid., V, 100. 

188 [bid., 100. 


189 Rotult Hundredorum, II, 28; Inquisitions Miscellaneous, I, 380-381. 
Cf. Pollock and Maitland, ie 644, 


190 De nativis: Glanville, I, 4; ef. V, 1. 


191 Three Northumberland nate Rolls, Surtees Soc., p. 159; Britton, ed 
Nichols, I, 201. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 121 


be rebuked by the justices through the infliction of a collective 
amercement.'?” 

_By virtue of the king’s writ obtained by the injured party 
the sheriff was authorized also to hear and determine many com- 
plaints concerning nuisances,!®? and encroachments. Britton 
shows that about 1290 various kinds of encroachments were 
determined not as assizes but as nuisances by sheriffs in county 
courts. He names encroachments of curtilage upon common, 
weirs, watering-places for cattle, erection of gates, folds, cow- 
houses, windmills, ovens, or sheepeotes.'®* Nuisances and minor 
disseisins were thus disposed of under writs of Justicies.°%° By 
virtue of this writ, also, sheriffs took cognizance of other personal 
actions such as torts in contracts, as when a covenant was broken, 
also concerning account or the enforcement of a reasonable aid 
levied by the king in either of the three customary feudal cases.1%° 
Some cases of distress, as shown above, were also heard in the 
eounty court by writ.'% 


11. THE SHERIFF AS THE KING’S JUSTICE 


With some pleas held by the sheriff in the county court it is 
clear that the suitors of the county generally had nothing to do. 
It has been suggested that when land cases were tried by duel in 
the time of Henry I the sheriff was regarded as sitting in a king’s 
ecourt.19® In certain matters committed to him by writ he was 
held in Bracton’s time’? to act vice tpsius regis, not as sheriff 


192 Three Northumberland Assize Rolls, Surtees Soc., p. 197. 
193 Bracton, Rolls Ser., III, 564. 


194 Britton, ed. Nichols, I, 278-279. Bracton (note 178) names others. 
Glanville (IX, 13) deals with encroachments upon the king’s tenements and 
royal highways, all of which are pleas of the crown. 


195 Britton, I, 407. 
196 [bid., I, 176. 


197 This might be removed by writ into the king’s bench, because it 
involved breach of the peace (ibid., I, 136). 


198 George B. Adams in American Historical Review, VIII, 488-489. 
199 De Legibus, Rolls Ser., II, 542. 


122 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


but as justitiarius regis. In practically all these matters, how- 
ever, no judgment was necessary, as when by special direction 
a jury was sworn, an inquest held, an extent or a partition of 
lands made. Many inquests the sheriff was specifically ordered 
to take in pleno comitatu,?°° and was even charged with the duty 
of determining the guilt of an accused person here by the verdict 
of a jury.*°' He was held also to act ut justitiarius when he 
terminated a plea concerning the taking and unjust detention of 
beasts.*°? In enforcing the assize of bread and beer and that of 
false measures he also acted as the king’s immediate agent,” 
and this was likewise true when, along with the coroner, he took 
attachments against the advent of the king’s justices. With the 
exception of the plea of distress, and the possible exception of the 
enforcement of the two assizes mentioned, these affairs could call 
for no action on the part of the court as a whole. Publicity and 
the ease of finding jurors there explain the motives for directing 
that they be transacted in the monthly session. 


12. COUNTY COURT PROCEDURE 


The law of the county and hundred courts was based upon the 
folkright which survived from Anglo-Saxon times. Process 
and forms of pleading and proof in the county assembly repre- 
sented archaic usage existing long before the king’s courts came 
into being. The new writ process and the disposal of matters by 
jury inquest were externals which appeared here only by the 
king’s special order placing the sheriff temporarily in loco 
qusticiari. 

The normal method of instituting proceedings in the county 
court, whether in a civil or a criminal matter, was by oral 


200 See below, pp. 165-166. He might not cause a freeman to take oath 
before him without the king’s writ (Northumberland Assizge Roll, 352). 


201 Below, p. 166. 
202 Above, p. 119; Bracton, De Legibus (ed. Twiss), II, 244, 248. 
203 Bracton, De Legibus, II, 542. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 128 


plaint*** according to a formula including certain words, the 
complainant being required to produce two sureties for his 
prosecution of the ease.2°° The sheriff then set a day for him to 
appear”®® and if necessary days for subsequent appearance. He 
then had to come term after term prepared to prosecute. The 
defendant in most matters was not in default if he appeared at 
the third session of the court.?°7 There were possible, moreover, 
essolns in case of the bed sickness of one of the parties, which 
would postpone matters for a year and a day, and for lesser 
periods in case of detention in the king’s service, or temporary 
sickness in traveling to the court.?°®> The court was lenient in 
granting further delays, so far as one may judge.?°° As the 
greater causes disappear from the county court the rules con- 
cerning default seem to be relaxed. When the defendant 
appeared and was duly accused it was then incumbent on the 
court, if he defended the case, to specify what proof he must 
offer?’° and to fix a time when he should make such proof. 

The information which Maitland collected enabled him to 
picture the plaintiff and the defendant placed opposite each 
other in court. The former began by taking the foreoath. He 
then told his tale, making his charge according to a formula 

204 For the form used in the sixteenth century see Dalton, Office and 
Authority of Sheriffs (1700), p. 428. 

205 Above, p. 113; also p. 154. See Bracton, De Legibus (Rolls Ser.), II, 
425, for appeals in criminal cases. In the Hyre of Kent, 1313-14 (Selden 
Soc.), I, 107, a county was amerced because by award of the county court 
a married woman was to find sureties for herself alone apart from her 
husband. 


206 Bracton’s Note Book, ed. Maitland, no. 445; ef. Hssays in Anglo- 
Saxon Law (Boston, 1876), p. 284. 

207 Even when appealed of breach of king’s peace (Northumberland 
Assize Rolls, 104-105). 

208 Glanville, I, 19-29. For instances in the county court, Bracton’s 
Note Book, nos. 1019, 1052. According to the Provisions of Westminster 
(cap. 20: Statutes of the Realm, I, 10) no man was to be obliged to swear 
in the county court or elsewhere for the warranting of his essoin. 

209 Thus a case concerning the taking of horses as gage was before the 
county court a year and a half before an accusation of crime was made 
(Pleas of Crown for Gloucester, ed. Maitland, no. 99). 

210 Pollock and Maitland, Hist. of English Law, II, 610. 


124 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


which required him to pay strict heed to the words he used.”" 
If he complained of a felony he had to do so in specific words. 
If he used words declaring that the offense was a breach of the 
king’s peace, the preliminary hearing might continue, but the 
disposal of the matter rested with the king’s justices.7‘?  Simi- 
larly the use of the word bloodwite in some pleadings in a 
manorial court concerning wounds and bloodshed would remove 
the cause into the county court.?!* Again, if the complainant 
omitted certain words the prosecution broke down.?!4 To make 
it effective he had to produce a number of witnesses (secta) who 
would by a formularistie oath support what he said.?*® 

The defendant then entered a denial of the charge, unless he 
wished to confess, and offered to defend the case in such manner 
as the court might direct. If the case was triable in the county 
and he was permitted to make wager of law, he usually had to 
produce a certain number of oath helpers to swear with him.?"® 
Thus the primary method of offering proof in old English law, 
that of providing the required number of persons of a specified 
quality to support the principal’s oath, still existed in local 
courts.*‘* Ordeals probably were not employed very generally 
in the county court which had so little to do with criminal 
offenses, but the ordeals of hot and cold water necessarily dis- 
appeared from local, as well as from the king’s courts as a result 
of the decree of the Lateran Council of 1215. The Norman 

211 [bid., II, 604-605. 

212 Bracton, De Legibus, II, 540. 

213 Pollock and Maitland, I, 580, note 1. 


214 [bid., I, 605. 


215 [bid., II, 605-607. In criminal cases in which the hue had been 
raised the plaintiff might depend upon the bailiff or the coroners to support 
his charges (Bracton, De Legibus, II, 425). 


216 Pollock and Maitland, II, 600-601, 607-609. 


217 When an action was brought against a man upon a simple contract 
without deed or record, the defendant swore in presence of his compurgators 
that he owed nothing (Northumberland Assize Rolls, 429). The Norman 
rule was that the Frenchman accused by the Englishman made oath se sexto 
(Libermann, Gesetze, I, 559). 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 125 


method of proof by duel still flourished.*'* The showing of one’s 
wounds in the presence of the coroner in the county court would 
establish the commission of a manifest crime and would probably 
deprive the accused of the advantage of proof by compurgation 
when the case came to be tried by the justices. <A plaintiff, 
apparently in the county court as elsewhere, might prevent a 
defendant from clearing himself in such easy fashion by chal- 
lenging him to duel.?'® 

There are some evidences that rigid formalism was being 
modified. The existence of the fine for beauwpleader prior to 1258 
suggests that it was possible through a payment to gain permis- 
sion to amend errors in the use of formulae and the fact that the 
Provisions of Westminster forbade these fines pro pulchre placi- 
tando whether in eyres,”*° counties, or baronial courts, shows an 
important movement for the greater flexibility of pleadings as 
a matter of right. A peculiar insistance upon less rigid formality 
is seen in an ordinance of William the Conqueror which gives to 
the Frenchman, who cannot repeat terrible Anglo-Saxon forms, 
the right when accused by an Englishman to clear himself in 
certain cases by a plain oath.”*! It is to be noted that appear- 
ance of principals in the county court of the fourteenth century 
was mainly by attorney. 


13. AMERCEMENTS AND FINES 


As in the royal, so in the local, courts, irregularities and 
defaults of many kinds were visited with amercement. The power 
to adjudge offenders at mercy in the local assembly court seems 
in theory to belong in the thirteenth century to the assembled 
suitors. There is complaint from the barons in 1259 that the 

218 Pollock and Maitland, II, 603. 


219 [bid. As to limitations upon its use, tbid., II, 633. 


220 Statutes of the Realm, I, 9; Stubbs, Select Charters, 402. They were, 
however, subsequently collected by sheriffs. 


221 Non in observantiis verborum: Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 484; ef. the 
alternative rendering, p. 487 (6:3) sacramento non fracto. 


126 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


sheriff in his tourn amerces men ut justitiarvus.??? They also 
complain that sheriffs impose amercements out of keeping with 
the offense involved. This latter usage some years later is seen 
to be irregular. In 1240 it is assumed that an amercement in the 
county court of Worcestershire will be levied per comitatum et 
coronatores.2**> In 1280 King Edward and his council decreed 
that when the men of Westmoreland ought to be amerced the 
amercement should be taxed in full county by good and lawful 
men as ought to be done by the Statute and not at the will of 
the sheriff and his bailiffs.224 The enactment to which allusion 
is made is part of the first Statute of Westminster. This pro- 
vides that certain amercements imposed in the king’s courts are 
no longer to be assessed unjustly by sheriffs, but are to be 
assessed before the justices by the oath of knights and other | 
honest men.?”° In the county court as at the eyre it thus appears 
that a special board of affeerers was appointed. Glanville**® says 
that there is no fixed schedule of amercements in the county 
court, but that in some counties the amount is greater and in 
others less. 

The few records of such amercements which have been pre- 
served??? throw a valuable sidelight on occurrences in the county 
court. The specific cases are in many instances the same as those 
for which the justices impose amercement. They suggest that 
the latter adopted much of the law which had been enforced in 
the local tribunals. The person who fails to come, the person 
who does not prosecute the claim he has made or prosecutes a 
claim shown to be false, the person who withdraws himself or 
does not produce the one he has pledged, all are amereed. So is 
the hundred which fails to present crime,?** or makes false pre- 

222 Stubbs, Select Charters, 384. 

223 Register of Worcester Priory, Camden Soe., p. 161b. 

224 Cal. Close Rolls, 1279-88, p. 109. 

225 Anno 1275, cap. 18. 

- 226 TX, 10. 


227 Below, pp. 197-228. 
228 Below, pp. 198, 200. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 127 


sentment, and the vill which fails to appear when required. In 
this last instance the four men and the reeve have apparently 
been delinquent. In some instances sheriffs unjustly amerced 
vills which did not turn out generally for a coroner’s inquest 
or similar business even when a sufficient number did attend.?*° 
Sums were also levied for default in a given cause, for refusal 
to accept the law wagered, for debt, or contempt or trespass, for 
the withdrawal of one’s essoiner sine die, for failure to come 
to an inquest as summoned, for causing unjust distraint or 
unjust detention or unjustly seizing animals, for raising the hue 
wrongfully. Bailiffs who failed in their duty were also amereed. 

The sheriff like the justices also granted privileges in return 
for fines which were promised. Sums are thus recorded as due 
for having respite, for relaxation of law waged, for having 
inquest, for license to make concord, to be placed at bail, to have 
warrant of essoin, to have grace or a dies amoris, and even for 
having an attorney or relaxation of essoins or for suit of county. 
Jews also agreed to make payments pro besantio,”*° that is to say 
a poundage to the crown of ten per cent on property which they 
recovered in the king’s courts. 

These perquisites of the county court from Anglo-Saxon times 
formed an important element in royal finance, for along with 
those of the hundred they constituted an integral part of the 
revenues for which the sheriff paid his annual ferm of the shire. 
When it is seen that for a single session of the county court of 
Yorkshire in 1258 and 1259 the amounts levied range from six 
to twenty pounds,?*! an idea may be gained of the considerable 
sums thus derived. Presumably the money thus levied was due 
immediately, for in the decade between 1280 and 1290 the day 
after the county court, otherwise called the retrocomitatus, 1s 
mentioned as a time for the:collection of the denarw Regis.?*° 

229 Stubbs, Charters, 385; Cam, Studies in the Hundred Rolls, 161. 

230 Below, p. 228. 

231 See below, pp. 224-229. 


232 Second Statute of Westminster, cap. 39, Statutes of the Realm, I, 90; 
Fleta, liber II, cap. 67, sec. 18; also below, no. 3. 


128 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14 


14. THE COUNTY COURT AS A COURT OF RECORD 


The county assembly was of course much older than the use 
of judicial records. Proceedings were normally instituted by 
plaint and not by writ. Dependence was placed upon the memory 
of the suitors who were present to attest the validity of what was 
done. In the technical sense the county court in this popular 
aspect could be no court of record. But from the standpoint of 
the king’s business the situation was different. The distinetion 
between the people’s county court and the king’s county court 
was so clear to Bracton that for some purposes he regarded the 
sheriff presiding over the assembled county as the king’s justice. 
Fleta, following this distinction, set up a curiously inconsistent 
theory regarding record of proceedings held at the king’s 
instance. Although from one point of view, so he held, the 
sheriff was merely the king’s bailiff who presided over his court 
baron for the county, yet he also acted as justice, jurisdiction 
being delegated to him by writs through which there was 
record.”°? The chancery writ was obviously an official record of 
what the sheriff was told to do, not of proceedings in the county 
eourt. The earliest case in which proceedings here were actually 
embodied in a record for use by the king’s agents was the well- 
known one under which, as a preliminary to a review in the 
king’s courts of action taken in the county assembly, the sheriff 
was ordered to have a recordum made. This in the beginning 
was of course merely an oral account agreed to by the suitors as 
a correct version of proceedings formerly held in their pres- 
ence.?** It was transmitted by four or six knights of the shire 
deputed for the purpose?*®> who recited before the justices the 

233 Fleta, II, cap. 43. 


234 Cf. Rigg, Cal. Plea Rolls Exchequer of the Jews, II, 125 126. 


235 Glanville, VIII, 10; Sel. Pleas of the Crown (Selden Soce.), no. 115. 
According to Bracton (De Legibus, II, 504) twelve men besides representa- 
tives of the four neighboring vills were employed in transmitting the record 
when one man accused another of crime. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 129 


story as the suitors had agreed upon it. But by the time of 
Bracton, the recordwm in some instances was a written account. 
The writ ordering the sheriff to have it taken might now direct 
that it be sent up under the sheriff’s seal?** and that of the 
coroners by two men who had a part in making it. As a matter 
of fact the roll kept by the coroner which recorded appeals in 
the county court and other matters relating to pleas of the 
crown was considerably older than Bracton’s time. As early as 
the reign of King John it was regarded by the king’s justices 
as having authority superior to that of the word of the men of 
the county.*°* The memoranda made by the sheriff for his own 
use had no official standing. Though he was required by the 
second Statute of Westminster to keep a roll which paralleled 
that of the coroners, their record, so it has been shown,?** had 
superior validity. The notes which the sheriff was keeping in 
the thirteenth century concerning amercements in the county 
court’** were of course merely to aid him in collection. It seems 
probable that this was the origin of the county court roll now 
known to have been kept in some instances in the fourteenth 
eentury,”*° but which so far as the judges or other royal officials 
were concerned had no legal standing. So in the seventeenth 
century, despite the obvious activity of a county clerk, the county 
court was held by lawyers to be a court of record only from the 
point of view of the time-worn methods for acquainting the 
king’s justices with what went on there.*** The county court 
from the thirteenth century on labored under some obvious dis- 
abilities in civil suits because it was not a court of record.?*” 


236 Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls Ser., II, 504. Bracton’s Note Book, case 
no. 243, shows a recordum reduced to writing as early as 1227. 


237 Select Pleas of the Crown, Selden Soe., no. 62. 

238 Gross, Select Coroners’ Rolls, Selden Soc., pp. XxXvi-xxvii. 
239 Below, pp. 197-228. 

240 Below, pp. 181-197. 


241 Dalton (Office of Sheriff, ed. 1700, p. 407) holds that the sheriff’s 
court by writs of Justicies and De Nativo habendo does not become a court 
of record but for matters relating to outlawry it does (ibid., 405; ef. p. 442). 


242 See Statutes of the Realm, I, 72, cap. 2. 


130 Unversity of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14 


15. THE REMOVAL OF CAUSES TO THE KING’S COURTS 


It is a maxim of Britton?** that whatsoever may be pleaded 
in the county court may also be pleaded in the eyre of the jus- 
tices. It need hardly be added that many causes also found 
their way to Westminster. When a defendant placed himself 
on the grand assize, trial in the county court of course became 
impossible, but a day was given and the matter was called in due 
course at the next session. Proceedings in the county formally 
ended when the tenant produced a writ of peace which in form 
prohibited the sheriff from holding the plea in the county 
court.*** If the suitors of the county awarded battle and it was 
joined contrary to the common law and the common usages of 
the realm, the folly of the award was reason for removal of the 
plea,?*° and the amercement of the suitors before the justices in 
such cases followed as a matter of course. But aside from special 
cases, there was a regular procedure by which causes might be 
removed from the jurisdiction of the sheriff and into that of the 
justices. This was sometimes done on petition of the plaintiff 
without assigning any reason.?*° 

The best known process for the attainment of this end was 
through the writ Pone, by which the sheriff was directed to place 
before the justices at a given time a matter already before him 
by writ.247 No cause was stated in the body of the writ, but 
according to Britton cause ought not to be allowed the tenant 
until it had been tried in full county court by his oath and that 
of two cojurors.248 In some cases the writ seems to have been 


243 Britton, Nichols ed., I, 133. 


244 Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls Ser., V, 102-104; Britton, ed. Nichols, I, 
335. 


245 Britton, ed. Nichols, I, 338. 
246 [bid., I, 336; ef. the writ below, p. 168. 


247 Below, p. 168; cf. Glanville, VI, 7, and Bracton, De Legibus, Rolls 
Ser... Viel10, 


248 Britton, ed Nichols, I, 338. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 131 


accompanied by another requiring that record of the proceedings 
in the county court be made and sent before the justices.?4° But 
the writ de recordo was issued after a party to a case had pro- 
cured a writ de falso iudicio and came to be regarded itself as 
a means of calling up matters from the county court.?°° The 
chancery records by the time of Edward I show also a kindred 
process under the writ certiorari by which the sheriff is ordered 
to certify super recordo proceedings in a certain matter and does 
so as a return endorsed upon the writ.?°! A person against whom 
a criminal accusation was lodged in the county court might at the 
next session have the matter transferred to the court of king’s 
bench upon presentation of a writ of venire facias.?*? 

When the defendant in a civil issue was in the king’s service 
it was possible to obtain a writ somewhat like the writ of peace, 
postponing action in the county court to a specified date.?°* 
There also appears in the earlier years of the reign of Henry III 
a writ form used still earlier, prohibiting the sheriff within a 
specified time from holding certain pleas, which during that 
period may be heard only before the king or his chief justiciar.?°* 


16. ADMINISTRATIVE IMPORTANCE OF THE COUNTY COURT 


When compared with the judicial side of county activity 
the administrative is more intangible. Unlike the former it is 
not treated in legal works, and precise knowledge of it must rest 
on specific cases often hidden away in obscure recesses. More- 


249 Bracton, Note Book, no. 445: breve Domini Regis de ponenda loquela 
in bancum et de recordo ibidem faciendo. 

250 In the seventeenth century the writ Pone was used to bring up pro- 
ceedings before the sheriff under writ of Justicies, the writ de Recordo 
to call up matters brought into the county court originally by plaint only 
and not by writ (Greenwood, Bouletherion or County Judicatures, ed. 3, 
London, 1668), pp. 56—59. 

251 Below, p. 169. 

252 Inquisitions Miscellaneous, Chancery I, no. 1423. 

253 As in Close Rolls of the Reign of Henry III, 1227-1231, p. 535. 

254 Rotuli Litterarum Clausarum, I, 428; ef. 431. . 


132 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


over, its bearing upon government was often but indirect, and its 
significance secondary and auxiliary. Its initiative, again, was 
usually strictly circumscribed. In the matter of electing officials 
and representatives of the shire the sheriff called upon the 
assembled suitors to act only when the king’s writ commanded 
him to do so. The medieval English king looked with disfavor 
upon any project to raise money in a community without the 
royal authority, unless such levy were of direct advantage to the 
erown. With extremely few exceptions the known eases of 
administrative action in the medieval county court rest upon 
the specific warrant of royal writ. Yet this body was of 
immense service in administration. Popular interest in the 
announcements, enactments, and proclamations here given pub- 
heity must have been far keener than that in all the judicial 
proceedings of any given session. Finally, the electoral practice 
and procedure here evolved, as occasional demand arose, is of 
enormous importance in Anglo-Saxon institutional life. 


17. FISCAL BUSINESS 


The function of the county court in relation to taxation 
always appears in the records as an auxiliary one. Never did 
the kings of England, like those of France in the fourteenth cen- 
tury, raise revenues by the sanction of provincial assemblies. 
The work of the county court had to do with the details of the 
levies enforced by central assemblies. In the reign of Henry I 
prelates were permitted to give pledge in the county court of 
Berkshire regarding their lands which were exempt from Dane- 
geld.25> The most important activity of the thirteenth-century 
county court bearing on taxation was the choice of taxors and 
the completion of other arrangements directed by writ to effect 
the levy and collection of the grant made the king by the council 
or the parliament. It has already been shown that in the earlier 


255 Chronicon Monasterti de Abingdon, Rolls Series, II, 160. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 133 


decades of the century such business sometimes required the 
assembling of the county in special session.?°® Direct levies of 
revenue at the instance of the court seem to have been of very 
rare occurrence. A levy to repair certain bridges is mentioned 
as resting upon the county even in the time of Edward I,?*" but 
it is very doubtful if at that time such a levy could be made 
without authority conveyed by writ. The case discovered by 
Maitland, in which an abbot was authorized, apparently by a 
county court, to build a bridge and to take tolls in return,?*® 
belongs to the reign of John. 

Yet action taken in the county court might indirectly 
authorize levies upon the county. When the county of Cornwall 
agreed to pay King John a fine for disafforesting the county,?°° 
and when this and some other counties of the southwest agreed 
to pay this king or his son sums for the privilege of choosing 
their own sheriffs,?°° they were really authorizing a levy upon 
the lands of the suitors of their respective county courts. All 
amercements levied upon the county and fines made by the 
county with the king for any purpose7*! of course had the same 
effect. So had an error in the fulfillment of their judicial duties, 
except that the sum levied in this case was in the nature of a 
penalty and not the result of a voluntary grant. 

Another occurrence in the county court of advantage to 
the king’s exchequer was the holding by the sheriff of inquests 
to provide information concerning the king’s fiscal interests. 
This of course was done only in obedience to royal writ. The 
usage, aS old as Domesday Book, is perpetuated throughout the 
period of the present study.”** In the strict sense it represents 

256 Above, p. 96. 

257 Assize Roll 664, m. 51. 

258 Pollock and Maitland, History of English Law, I, 555. 

259 Lit. Claus., I, 478. 


260 Madox, Hachequer, I, 508 note (n). 


261 As in Close Rolls, 1234-37, p. 83; 1247-51, p. 447; Pollock and Mait- 
land, Hist. of English Law (1899), I, 536. 


262 See below, p. 170. 


134 Unwersity of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


a function of the sheriff rather than of the county. But since he 
was directed to hold such inquests in the county court because 
of the obvious advantage both of publicity and of ease in finding 
jurors who knew the facts, it is apparent that the assemblage in 
a real sense contributed to the end in view. 


18. THE ORDAINING IMPULSE 


It seems that the county court of the middle ages tended to 
assume a power, like that sometimes exercised later by the court 
leet,?°* of making certain general regulations through present- 
ment on the part of a representative jury. Counties, moreover, 
followed shghtly different customs in matters like presentment 
of Englshry, the amount of amercements to be levied in certain 
instances,”** and the length of the interval between their sessions. 
A famous instance of a peculiar usage respecting amercements 
had grown up in Herefordshire in Norman days.*® Any popular 
body which enforced law might thus follow peculiar usages 
which had all the effect of small-scale legislation. Thus, when 
women brewers were permitted to brew and sell contrary to assize 
for but one amercement a year, the county court was in effect 
leensing such conduct. In 1280 the king and his council forbade 
that this be permitted any longer by the county court of West- 
moreland.?°° 

Another instance which occurred in 1269 shows a county 
court going much farther than the enforcement of peculiar local 
usage or what might be termed a rule of the court. In that year 
it was deemed necessary to make local regulations for the pro- 
tection of salmon in the county of Northumberland. The inci- 


263 Cf. the writer’s Frankpledge System, 166, note 1. 

264 Glanville, IX, 10. 

265 William Fitz Osbern made a rule that no knight was to incur an 
amercement of more than seven shillings although elsewhere the amount was 
twenty and twenty-five shillings (Malmesbury, Gesta Regum, Rolls Ser., II, 
314). 

266'Cal. Close Rolls, 1279-80, p. 110. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 135 


dent is well known,?* though some of its attendant circumstances 
have escaped attention. How the matter was initiated is not 
stated, but the process of enactment was upon presentment before 
the itinerant justices of articles made by the jury of twelve which 
on such occasions represented the county as a whole.?** This 
piece of legislation established a closed season for the fish and 
nominated wardens of the waters of the county who in ease 
vacancies occurred were to be replaced by others selected by and 
sworn in before the sheriff. A penalty of a mark was established 
for violation of the provisions of the ordinance establishing a 
closed season for salmon, and those who remained delinquent 
after conviction were to be sent to the king’s prison and not 
replevied except by consent of the wardens. These arrangements 
made by unanimous consent of the knights and freemen of the 
county were to be binding until the next eyre when they might 
be altered with the consent of the county court. 

This whole transaction shows the county court greatly desir- 
ing legislation in this particular matter, but not permitted to 
enact it without the consent of the justices. Theirs it was to 
enforce the existing usage of the county. Infraction would be 
brought to their attention by jury presentment and visited with 
amercement. So long as the general eyre was continued it seems 
clear that the enactment or virtual enactment of new by-laws or 
ordinances in the county court could take place only through 
their participation and cognizance. Their influence checked the 
earlier trend toward a diversity in county usage which might 
have grown into a local legislative power and which in some ways 
seems to illustrate the rise at an earlier time of the legislative 
function of the tribal assembly. Just what happened in the 
fourteenth and fifteenth centuries it would be interesting to 
know. It is notable that the justices of the peace exercised such 


a quasi-legislative power in the eighteenth century.?® 


267 Pollock and Maitland, Hist. of English Law, I, 555. 
268 Northumberland Assize Rolls, Surtees Soc., p. 208-209. 
269 Webb, English Local Government: Parish and County, 533-550. 


136 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14 


19. ADMINISTRATIVE PUBLICITY 


A very important purpose attained through the county 
assembly was to convey to the suitors necessary information con- 
cerning public affairs. This function was an ancient one, dating 
from before the Norman conquest. Not only did the men of the 
county thus become familiar with new enactment and new obliga- 
tion as fixed by statute or proclamation, but they gained much 
information concerning local as well as royal business. The 
educative effect of inquests, of presentments concerning crown 
interests and of arrangements to aid in taxation were by no means 
confined to those who were designated as jurors or taxors. In 
some sense all who heard even the reading of the king’s writs 
were initiated into the mysteries of public affairs. Especially 
was this true when the royal mandate was fulfilled by some 
specific act on the part of the whole body. Publicity attained 
through the county assembly familiarized people generally with 
the methods and requirements of the king’s government. More- 
over, it served as a safeguard against maladministration by 
acquainting the men of the county with orders issued to the 
sheriffs, with writs to be executed, with the exact detail as to 
taxes to be levied, military service to be performed, or other 
requirements to be met. 

The protection of popular interests was in some measure 
furthered also through the installation in. the county court of 
certain officials. A statute of Edward II declares that writs are 
to be served only by hundredors sworn and known of all in the 
county ecourt.?”° This practice of administering the oath of office 
publicly to the bailiffs appointed by the sheriff is mentioned still 
earlier, in the reign of Edward I.*' Bailiffs of franchises, whose 
duty it was to collect estreats or serve writs sent them by the 


270 Statutes of the Realm, I, 175. 
271 Assize Roll 982, mm. 22, 23, shows this usage in 1280. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 137 


sheriff, were sometimes sworn here.?7?. This was done also in the 
case of some officials elected in the county court, particularly 
coroners*’* and escheators.?** The abbot of Evesham in the reign 
of Henry III entered into an agreement with a sheriff by which 
he was to designate in the county court those who collected 
within his liberty the estreats and summonses of the exchequer.?”® 

The king’s writs often directed sheriffs to have a specific act 
of government read in pleno comitatu. These documents included 
various charters and royal grants.?"° Charters of feoffment seem 
to fall among these, in conformity with a usage older than 
Domesday Book?" by which seisin of lands granted by the king 
was made before the men of the county. The charter of liberties 
issued by Henry I?7® as well as the Magna Charta of 1217?° 
and some of its successors**° were read in the county courts. At 
least two statutes of Edward I were promulgated in the same 
way.”*! In 1300 sheriffs were ordered to have the Charter of 
Liberties and the Charter of the Forest read four times a year in 
pleno comitatu.**? The Statute of Carlisle, passed in 1307, con- 
tains a provision requiring that it be recited in all its articles 
in two county courts. This method of placing new legislation in 


272 Below, p. 172. In Gloucestershire (Feudal Aids, II, 23) the earl had 
a bailiff juratum vicecomiti who responded for certain summonses. In the 
seventeenth century it was the duty of the sheriff to nominate an under- 
sheriff and deputies in the first county after he assumed office: Dalton, The 
Office and Authority of Sheriffs (1700), p. 19. 


273 Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, Selden Soc., p. xx. 


274 Close Roll 65, m. 17, Public Record Office. So apparently verderers 
(Close Rolls, 1231-34, p. 50). 


275 Below, p. 172. 
276 As in Close Rolls, 1227-31, p. 392. 
277 Domesday Book, I, 36. 


278 Proceedings of Royal Historical Society, n.s., VIII, 22; English 
Histor. Rev., XXVIII, 444-445. 


279 Foedera, I, 147; English Histor. Rev., XVIII, 449-450. Mr. Poole 
believes the document was proclaimed, not read. 


280 Close Rolls, 1234-37, pp. 421, 541. 
281 Close Rolls, 1288-96, p. 380; Stats. of the Realm, I, 152. 
282 Foedera, I, 919. 


138 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


effect was probably more regular and systematic than the scat- 
tered references would imply, for it dated from the Anglo-Saxon 
period.?*? 

Proclamations were also made before the county assembly, 
although these were in many instances made by eriers in other 
public places. Among the proclamations announced before the 
assembled counties were those calling out the tenants-in-chief for 
military service*** or requiring persons holding forty librates of 
land in fee to receive knighthood.?*> An order that certain 
persons be summoned to appear before the king’s council was 
sometimes announced in the same way.?**® Proclamations in the 
county court regarding the coinage and matters bearing upon 
the collection of the king’s debts?** show how the process was 
employed as an essential step in administration. In the Angevin 
period the sheriff was required to perform some acts publicly 
in the county court to escape personal lability. Thus he was 
lable if the summoners whom he appointed failed to execute the 
king’s writ unless he had publicly enjoined them to do so in the 
county court.?** He was also required before he permitted the 
tenant-in-chief to settle directly with the exchequer to receive 
here his pledge that he would make due satisfaction for the debt 
he owed the king.?°? | 

Publicity attained through the county court was also ex- 
tremely useful in the transaction of judicial preliminaries and 
affairs of private concern. A person who had sued out a writ at 
the exchequer sometimes presented it to the sheriff to be read 
out.*°° The second statute of Westminster specified that the 

283 English Historical Review, XXVIII, 425. 

284 As in Report on Dignity of a Peer, III, 10. 

285 Parliamentary Writs, I, 257. 

286 Dugdale, Summons of the Nobility, 3. 

287 Below, pp. 175-177. 

288 Glanville, I, 30. 


289 Dialogus de Scaccario, Oxford ed., p. 151. 


290 K. R. Memoranda Roll 74, m. 27, records proceedings in the exchequer 
in the case of a false writ presented to the sheriff in full county court. 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 139 


trickery of sheriffs might be overcome by the presentation of 
writs in pleno comitatu.?®! Before the writ of mesne became 
effective the sheriff was required by the same statute to cause it 
to be proclaimed solemnly in two sessions so that the mesne lord 
might come at the day set in the writ to answer his tenants.” 
The sheriff of Westmoreland in 1254 was ordered to have read 
in the county court the letters of protection obtained by an 
abbot.?°? Furthermore, the execution of a private grant of land? 
and the reading of a deed?’ are mentioned as items in the agenda 
of this body. ._In John’s time a law writer says that he who 
wishes to free his serf is to hand him by the right hand to the 
sheriff in pleno comitatu.2°° 


20. ELECTIONS 


Upon the sheriff in the county court was enjoined by writ the 
duty of holding various elections. To a few counties John and 
Henry III granted as a special privilege the right of electing the 
sheriff, and Edward I made this optional for a brief period by a 
provision of the Articula supra Cartas. Directions concerning 
the election of sheriffs in the time of King Edward were sent to 
the coroners of the county. But when other officers were con- 
cerned the regular procedeure was by writ to the sheriff ordering 
him to cause election to be made. One of the earliest forms of 
election in the county court was that of four knights of the 
county who designated in each hundred two knights to fill up the 
list of jurors to make presentments before the itinerant justices. 


291 Cap. 39. 

292 Stat. of the Realm, I, 78 (cap. 9). This is described as a judicial 
writ directed to the sheriff ordering him to distrain the mesne to acquit the 
tenant and to appear in court to show cause why he had not done so before. 
(Year Books, Edward II, Selden Soc., XVI, 77, and note 4.) 

293 See below, p. 174. 

294 Ancient Charters, Pipe Roll Soc., X, 73. 

295 See below, p. 174. 

296 Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 491 (15:1). 


140 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


Dating from 1194,?*" this procedure was continued throughout 
the next century, although the election in the time of Britton 
is Shown to be nothing but presentment by the bailiff.2°* Accord- 
ing to the Magna Charta of 1215?°° four knights of each county 
were to be chosen per comitatum to aid assigned justices in 
taking the possessory assizes, and twelve knights were to be chosen 
in each county per probos homines ejusdem comitatus to inquire 
into the evil usages of local officials. Moreover, the sheriff caused 
to be chosen reguarders, twelve in each reguard,*°° who per- 
formed the function of presentment jurors before the justices of 
the forest. The verderers, assigned to guard the king’s venison 
in each forest, were regularly thus elected, at least after 1219.*°* 
Stubbs shows®” also that conservators of the peace were some- 
times elected, and in the years just before the Barons’ War the 
election of an escheator in pleno comitatu is occasionally ordered 
by the king’s writ.°°° 

The election of coroners in the county court is far better 
known. When this is first mentioned, in 1194, four were to be 
chosen in each county.*°* After 1219 vacancies in the office as 
they occurred were filled by the king’s writ to the sheriff direct- 
ing that he cause election to be made in full county court by 
assent of the whole county.*°® King Edward I, who insisted that 
coroners must have lands in the county,*** in letters close of the 


297 Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 259. 


298 As in Assize Rolls, 135, m. 1; 669, m. 16; 600, m. 13; 915, m. 1; 982, 
m. 29. 


299 Sees. 18, 48. 
300 Royal Letters of Henry III, Rolls Ser., I, 345. 


301 Lit. Claus., I, 409, 493, 529; Close Rolls, 1231-34, p. 50; ibid., 1272— 
79, p. 145. 


302 Constnl. Hist., II, 239. 
303 Below, p. 179. 
304 Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 260, sec. 20. 


305 Lit. Claus., I, 402, 409, 414; Close Rolls, 1231-34, p. 7. Apparently 
this was sometimes done before the king’s justices (Sel. Coroners’ Rolls, 
PwAXEVIL)s . . 

306 Cal. Close Rolls, 1279-88, p. 443. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 141 


year 1304 to the sheriff of Northumberland complains of a report 
that he has spared the rich men who have lands and elected as 
coroner a certain William of Tynemouth who has none. Because 
the king regards William as insufficient for the office he orders 
the sheriff, if William has no lands, to remove him from office 
without delay and cause another to be elected in his place.*°”? The 
incident, like the contested election of sheriff for Shropshire and 
Staffordshire, which oceurred at practically the same time, seems 
to show the attitude of the chancery in this period toward county 
elections. 

Interest in the election of the knights of the shire, which 
appears later than the other forms, has tended to obscure these, 
and the influence which they must have had in determining the 
method by which the county representatives in parliament should 
be chosen. There is no definite reference to elections in the 
county court in John’s time, if allowance be made for the rather 
obvious exception of the selection of a sheriff of Devon. The 
principle was already known. The various groups of persons 
whom the king desired to convene, however, including the four 
disereet men from each county in 1213, he merely directed the 
sheriff to send. The first clear case of the choice of men in 
county courts to speak for the county at large in any matter is 
a well-known one which was ordered in 1226°°° and carried out 
the next year. A contention having arisen over the interpre- 
tation of the charter of liberties between the men of some of the 
counties and their sheriffs in matters relating to the replevin of 
averia, the magnates of the realm at Winchester petitioned the 
king to terminate the matter. The sheriffs of the counties in 
question were accordingly commanded by the king’s writ to 
cause the animals to be replevined for the time being and in the 
next county court speak to the knights and probit homines of 

307 [bid., 1302-07, 226. 


308 Cf. Stubbs, Constitutional History, II, 218; Rot. Litt. Claus., II, 212, 
213. 


142 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


the bailiwick that they choose from among themselves four law- 
worthy and discreet knights who at an appointed day should 
appear pro toto comitatu to set forth their differences with the 
sheriff.°°° All this certainly implies that sheriffs did not control 
elections in county courts at the time and that there was an 
expression of the wishes of the assembled suitors.*4° But the 
selection of the coroner on some occasions seems to have been 
dominated by the sheriff, and the aim in electing the four knights 
who controlled the nomination of presentment juries for the 
eyre was presumably to remove the matter from his hands. 

The election for the first time in 1254 of knights in all the 
shires to appear in parliament at Westminster and make a grant 
to the king was a more general application of the procedure and 
principles of 1226. It is possible that for a time sheriffs desig- 
nated the parliamentary knights. Except in 1264%" there is no 
conclusive proof that they were again elected to any parlia- 
ment*!? prior to the second parliament of the year 1275. The 
knights who came pro conmunitatibus with full power??® to the 
parliaments of January 1283 were probably so chosen. Election 
to successive parliaments was of course the rule. 


309 Report on Dignity of a Peer, App. I, p. 4; Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 357. 

310 The Magna Charta of 1215 (sec. 48) directs the election per probos 
homines comitatus of twelve knights to inquire into evil customs to be 
abolished. Among these were customs of the sheriffs. Cf. Rot. Litt. Pat., 
I, 145. 

311 Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 412; Rymer, Foedera, I, 442. 

312 For the writs of 1261 and 1265, Report on the Dignity of a Peer, 
App. I, 23, 34; Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 405, 415. The words in the writ for 
the Easter parliament of 1275 are venire facias instead of elegi facias (Eng. 
Hist. Rev., XXV, 234, 236). For the summons to the autumn parliament of 
1275 calling for election de assensu ejusdem mesh Stubbs, Constnl. 
Hist. 11, 234, n. 15. 


313 Report on Dignity of a Peer, App. I, 46; Stubbs, Sel. Charters, 465. 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 143 


21. CONCLUSION 


The Anglo-Saxon shiremote was in a very real sense the 
cornerstone of the English legal system. Both before and for a 
long time after the Norman conquest it was the most important 
court of general jurisdiction, thé great channel through which 
flowed the stream of folkright descending from the past. Its 
main function is usually supposed to have been the determination 
of right in civil causes, yet its retention of outlawry and of a 
minor criminal jurisdiction in Glanville’s day, after the more 
important causes had gone to the king’s court, is a reminder 
that the criminal causes heard before the sheriff at an earlier 
time were far from unimportant, and included pleas of the 
erown.*'4 The employment of the county assembly as a regular 
forum for private accusation in criminal causes comes naturally 
out of its past history. Its use thus as an accessory to the 
work of the king’s justices after 1166 was apparently the main 
factor in making the monthly rather than the semiannual session 
the regular order. Presentment of Englishry must have been 
made before the sheriff in this tribunal in the Norman period 
no less than in the thirteenth century. The infliction of the 
murdrum upon the hundred must originally have occurred here. 
This seems to be the only appropriate body for the purpose, and 
the eyre of the justices at which it occurred in the days of written 
records was held as a session of the county. The same facts 
appear to associate the Norman sheriff in the county court with 
the enforcement of the duties of the frankpledge tithing. Even 
in the thirteenth century the county assembly might inflict 
amercement on lesser units of the county, the hundred or the 

814 In the reign of Henry I certain of the later pleas of the crown were 
obviously tried before this body. It was important to the maintenance of the 
king’s peace (Liebermann, Gesetze, I, 524, sec. 4). Moreover obstructions 


upon certain highways and waters were offenses sub lege comitatus (Leges 
Edwardi Confessoris, 12.9 ff.). 


144 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


vill, for failure to appear and fulfill their duties. But although 
it continues to be an important accessory to the work of the 
king’s justices, from the time of Henry II to that of Edward I 
they took over its actual judicial business with the exception of 
that which belonged to its civil jurisdiction in minor causes. 
This remnant, despite the assurance of various writers concern- 
ing its insignificance, was carefully preserved until almost our 
own day. It might be enlarged by the simple process of procur- 
ing at the chancery certain writs of course. 

The administrative importance of the county court has been 
quite as much underestimated as has its legal importance. Its 
administrative functions have usually been subordinated to the 
concept of its importance in the history of democracy. More- | 
over, administrative data bearing upon it are widely scattered in 
the records, and a single case does not create the impression 
made by the multiplicity of cases which may be traced in legal 
records. But a study of the administrative work of the county 
court in the thirteenth century shows an initiative practically 
limited to those cases in which a chancery writ authorized the 
sheriff to take action. If this assembly aided in the details of 
taxation when so directed only after the parliament or the great 
council had voted the tax, yet in the county court resided the 
power to make engagements which had the effect of imposing 
levies upon the lands of the county. To be sure, this appears 
more frequently in the time of King John than in that of King 
Edward. One may still entertain suspicions as to what went on 
in the time of Flambard and William Rufus. Yet, so far as law 
and usage go, the county court was not a body which possessed 
powers of taxation. Furthermore, despite occasional instances 
of legislative activity on the part of local assemblies in the Anglo- 
Saxon period, the county court of the thirteenth century might 
enact by-laws only by indirect methods and with the assent of 
the king’s justices. As a medium of publicity for the king’s 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 145 


acts and proclamations this body had greater administrative 
importance than constitutional history has taken into account. 
Such matters as the enforcement of regulations concerning the 
coinage and the collection of information about sums collected, 
but not acquitted at the exchequer, by sheriffs were dependent 
upon the proclamation made before this body and elsewhere. Its 
usefulness as a medium of publicity and a place for the instal- 
lation of local officials requires attention which it has never 
received, and its extensive activity and experience as an electoral 
body prior to the period when it regularly chose the parlia- 
mentary knights of the shire demands renewed emphasis. 
Although in the treatment of the county court it has been 
customary to sacrifice much to the genesis of electoral usages, 
yet the actual and potential democracy of the shiremote of the 
thirteenth century has not been carefully enough considered. 
General acceptance of the fact that attendance was not confined 
to specific social classes is recent. It demands a corresponding 
enlargement of ideas concerning the influence of this body upon 
the political education of Englishmen. Despite some stiff con- 
temporary assertion of aristocratic principles concerning the 
weight of influence of knights, freeholders, and the upper class 
of suitors generally in elections and judgments in the county 
court, a good many villains not only attended but so actively 
participated that they shared legal responsibility for judgments 
rendered. There was a commingling and at least some coopera- 
tion of classes which, quite aside from questions concerning the 
actual influence of knights, freeholders, and magnates, lies at the 
root of Anglo-Saxon self-government. The king’s business was 
transacted and his acts of government promulgated in the pres- 
ence of all. To this extent all alike shared in the information 
imparted and the proclamation made. The mere presence of 
men of the lower classes on so important and interesting an 
occasion was the greatest of all steps in their political education. 


146 University of California Publications in History [Vou 14 


To be sure, not all the villains of the county were in attendance, 
probably only a very small number. But neither were all the 
freeholders and knights in attendance. Only the demands of 
nineteenth-century democracy have reached out for all and have 
insisted on making electoral qualifications consistent and uni- 
form. Generations before this had been accomplished English- 
men of all classes had learned to work together and self-gov- 
ernment had been attained. Within the limited range of its 
attendance the county court was in practical effect a more demo- 
cratic body than either historians have supposed or the usage of 
procedure has revealed. 








' PART II 
ILLUSTRATIVE DOCUMENTS 


A. MISCELLANEOUS CountTy CourT DOCUMENTS 
1. SUCCESSIVE SESSIONS OF THE COUNTY OF MIDDLESEX, 1295 


Et ad comitatum Midd’ tentum apud Braynford die jovis 
. proxima ante festum sancte Petronille virginis' anno predicti 
regis nuper regis Anglie xxij?? Thoma Pouton Adam Purdy 
Thoma Lyggere alias dictus Thoma Passeware et Johannes 
Shepherd de Ievulchestre ad sectam Thome Gondgrome de 
placito quod dicti Thoma Pouton et Adam reddant ei xvij li. 
Et de placito quod dicti Thoma Lyggere et Johannes reddant 
el xvij li. primo exacti fuerunt et non comparuerunt. Et ad comi- 
tatum Midd’ tentum apud Crucem lapideam die jovis proxima 
post festum nativitatis sancti Johannes Baptiste? anno predicti 
nuper regis xxllij° predicti Thoma Adam Thoma et Johannes ad 
sectam predicti Thome Gondgrome de placito predicto secundo 
exacti fuerunt et non comparuerunt. Et ad comitatum Midd’ 
tentum apud Braynford die jovis proxima ante festum sancti 
Jacobi apostoli? anno xxiij° supradicto predicte Thoma Adam 
Thoma et Johannes ad sectam predicti Thome Gondgrome de 
placito predicto tertio exacti fuerunt et non comparuerunt. Et 
ad comitatum Midd’ tentum apud Crucem lapideam die jovis 
proxima ante festum Sancti Bartholmei apostoli* anno xxuj° 
supradicto predicti Thoma Adam Thoma et Johannes ad sectam 
predicti Thome Gondgrome de placito predicto quarto exacti 
fuerunt et non comparuerunt set manucapti fuerunt per Adam 


1 May 27,1294. 2June 30,1295. 3July 21,1295. 4 Aug. 18, 1295. 


150 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou 14 


Tye veniendum ad proximum comitatum. Et ad comitatum 
Midd’ tentum apud Braynford die jovis proxima ante festum 
Sancti Mathei’ apostoli anno xxiij° supradicto predicti Thoma 
Adam Thoma et Johannes ad sectam predicti Thome Gondgrome 
de placito predicto quinto exacti fuerunt et non comparuerunt. 


Ideo utlagati fuerunt. Coroners’ Roll 256, m. 29. 


2. SUCCESSIVE SESSIONS OF THE COUNTY COURT OF 
LINCOLNSHIRE,? 1345 


Ad comitatum Lincoln’ tento apud Lincoln’ die lune proxima 
post festum annunciationis beate Mariae* anno regni regis 
Edwardi tertii post conquestum Anglie decimo nono. Johannes 
atte Geldhons et ceteri primo exacti non comparuerunt. 

Ad comitatum Lincoln’ tento apud Lincoln’ die lune proxima 
post festum Sancti Johannis ante portam Latinam proximo 
sequens secundo* exacti non comparuerunt. 

Ad comitatum Lincoln’ tento apud Lincoln’ die lune proximas 
[sic] post festum Sancti Botolphi’ proximo sequens tertio exacti 
non comparuerunt. 

Ad comitatum Lincoln’ tento apud Lincoln’ die lune proxima 
post in festo Sancti Petri ad vincula® proximo sequenti quarto 
exacti non comparuerunt. 

Ad comitatum Lincoln’ tento apud Lincoln’ die lune proxima 
post festum natale beate Marie’ proximo sequens quinto exacti 


ut Supra. 
Coroners’ Roll 256, m. 8. 


1 Sept. 15, 1295. 


2In the MS. this is a continuation of no. 14, which appears on pages 
159-160. 


3 Mar. 28, 1345. 
4May 9. 

5 June 20. 

6 Aug. 1. 

7 Sept. 12. 





; 
, 
3 
| 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court (teal 


3. MENTION OF THE SHIRE HALL AND THE RETROCOMITATUS, 
1289-1293 


Thomas Spicer queritur de Roberto Corbet quondam vice- 
comite Salop et Roberto de Norwyco subvicecomite eiusdem 
comitatus de eo quod ipsi simul cum Nicholao de Waleshale et 
Henrico de Wolverhampton post transfretationem domini Regis 
nune in Vasconiam in ipsum Thomam in regia via apud Stafford’ 
per perceptum predicti vicecomitis insultum fecerunt et ipsum 
vereberaverunt et maletractaverunt et traxerunt per capillos in 
aulam ubi tenent comitatum in eadem villa et ipsum imprison- 
averunt ibidem quousque deliberatus fuit per ballios eiusdem 
ville contra pacem domini Regis unde dicit deterioratus est et 
dampnum habet ad valentiam decem librorum ete. 


Et Robertus et Robertus veniunt et Robertus de Norwyco 
dicit quod cum ipsi colligerunt denarios domini Regis in retro 
comitatu suo apud Stafford’ audivit utesium levatum in eadem 
villa propter quod ivit ibidem et vidit predictum Thomam 
extraxisse cultellum suum volendo percussisse quosdam homines et 
cum idem Robertus voluit eum empedire idem Thomas iniecit in 
eum manus violenter ob quam transgresionem duxit eum coram 
vicecomite in predicta aula et fecit eum ibidem arestari quous- 
que invenit plegios emendandi predictam transgressionem et 
hoe paratus est verificare sicut curia considerabit. 


' Assize Roll 541 A, m. 20. 


4. DESIGNATION OF THE PLACE FOR HOLDING THE COUNTY 
COURT OF SURREY, 1262 


Rex vicecomiti Surr’ salutem. Cum dudum ad melioracion 
ville nostre de Guldeford per cartam nostram concesserimus 
probis hominibus eiusdem ville et eorum heredibus quod 
comitatus noster Surr’ imperpetuum teneatur in eadem villa de 


152 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


Guldeford et quod justiciarii nostri itinerantes ad communia 
placita in comitatu predicto quotiens ipsos itinerare contigerit, 
sedeant et teneant placita illa in eadem villa de toto comitatu 
predicto, et nos nuper iter justiciariorum nostrorum summoneri 
fecimus quod esset apud Bermundiseye ad diem quem iidem 
justiciarii nostri tibi scire fecerint eo quod non recolebamus con- 
cessionis nostre predicte eisdem hominibus a nobis facte' volui- 
mus nichilominus quod iter predictum quod coram justiciariis 
nostris predictis jam summonitum est apud Bermundeseye sum- 
moneatur quod sit coram eisdem apud Guldeford die predicto 
et quod iidem justiciarii nostri ibidem sedeant et teneant placita 
illa de toto comitatu predicto secundum tenorem carte nostre 
supradicte ... 

Teste Ph. Basset Justiciario Regis Anglie apud La Bruer 


xxvij die Aug. Close Roll 78, m. 5 d. 


5. RELIEF FROM SUIT OF COUNTY, 1254 


Quia Sibilla Gifford est in servicio Regis cum hberis Regis 
apud Windes[ores] mandatum est vicecomiti Berks quod ipsam 
non distringat pro sectis comitatus vel hundredorum usque ad 
Natale proximo venturum. Teste Ricardo comite cornubiae apud 


St [rat] ford XXXll die Aug. Close Roll 67. m. 3 


6. THE SETTING OF A DAY FOR HEARING PLAINTS, 1254 


Inquisitio facta coram coronatoribus et vicecomite Herford’ 
per preceptum domini regis die Sabbati proxima ante festum 
sancti hyllarii anno regni regis H[enrici| xxxix inter homines 
hundredorum de Brockessesse et de Grimeswrosne ex una parte 
et Willelmum de Sancto Omero ex altera per sacramentum 
Rogeri de Herford?....qui dicunt per sacramentum suum 


1 In the text the form is fce. 
2 Eleven others are named. 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 153 


quod homines dictorum hundredorum solebant esse quietos [sic] 
scilicet homines hundredi de Brockesesse pro xv marcis et 
homines hundredi Grimeswroshe pro vill marcis pro omnibus 
amercimentis ad turnum vicecomitis nec aliquid dare solebant 
alicui vicecomiti post predictam [sic] finem communem levatam 
nisi quod gratis dederunt nisi cum aliquis conqueretur de aliquo 
forisfacto quod vicecomes posset placitare et tune vicecomes 
solebat constituere ei diem ad comitatum et ibidem placitare. 


Chancery Inquisitions Miscellaneous, file 9, number 12. 


7. PRESENTMENT OF ENGLISHRY IN THE COUNTY COURT OF 
SUSSEX, 1281 


Totus comitatus predictus recordatur quod Engl|[ischeria] 
presentatur in comitatu ista per unum ex parte patris et alium 
ex parte matris et tantum de masculis occisis per feloniam et de 
aliis qui sunt aetatis xii annorum et ultra et hoe in pleno 
comitatu coram coronatoribus. Masse Rol 786, ma 1. 


8. APPEALS IN THE COUNTY COURT OF WESTMORELAND, 1278 


Westmerland anno septimo W. de Saram. 

Placita corone apud appleby in comitatu Westmerl’ coram 
J. de Vallibus et Willelmo de Saham et sociis suis ibidem itiner- 
antibus in erastino Sancte Lucie Virginis anno Regni Regis 
Edwardo Septimo. 

Willelmus filius Rogeri de Thirneby occidit Johannem 
Molendinarium de Heppe et statim fugit et malecreditur. Ideo 
exigatur et utlagatur. Catalla ejus xxxiij s.ixd. Unde Rogerus 
de Clifford et Rogerus de Leyburne heres Rogeri de Leyburn 
respondent. Et quia predictus Rogerus superstes est et perdictus 
Rogerus similiter et ceperunt predicta catalla sine warranto Ideo 
in misericordia. Postea testatum est per rotulos coronatoris quod 


154 University of California Publications in History |Vou. 14 


Sibilla que fuit uxor Johannis apellavit in comitatu predictum 
Willelmum de morte prédicta et non prosecuta fuit appellum 
suum versus eum nisi ad tres comitatus. Ideo ipsa capiatur et 
plegii sui de prosequendo in misericordia scilicet Lambertus de 
Morlaund et Thomas filius Thome de Heppe. Postea venit pre- 
dictus Willelmus et protulit cartam domini regis Henrici que 
testatur quod dominus Henricus rex perdonavit ei sectam pacis 
sue que ad ipsum pertinet de morte predicta. Ita tamen quod 
stet recto si quis versus cum inde loqui voluerit. Et quia 
solempniter proclamatum est si quis ete. Et nullus ete. Ideo. 
conceditur ei firma pax et nichil de utlagaria. 


Assize Roll 980, m. 30. 


Mattillis filia Thome de Cellemere appelavit in comitatu 
Alexandrum filium Thome Sutoris de Stukland de rapo et pace 
domini regis fracta. Et Matillis obiit. Et juratores testantur 
quod concordantes fuerunt. [deo ipse in misericordia. .. . 


Dionisia filia Elie de Nateby appellavit in comitatu Henricum 
filium Henrici de rapo et pace domini regis fracta, ete. Et 
Dionisia et Henricus veniunt et conecordantes sunt. Ideo pre- 
ceptum est vicecomiti quod custodiat. Et postea finem fecerunt 
per xl denarios per plegium Thome de Newebigginge. 


Cristina filia Custancie Textricis de Appelby appelavit in 
ecomitatu Robertum de Braythwayt de rapo, ete. Et Cristina 
obit. Et Robertus non venit et fuit attachiatus per Adam filium 
Cristine de Hopp’ et Henricum de Hekedal. Ideo ipsi in 
misericordia. 


Agnes uxor Walteri Lungy appellavit in comitatu Rogerum 
Fybel de morte Walteri viri sui etc. Et Agnes obit. Et juratores 
dicunt super sacramentum suam quod predictum Rogerus male- 
ereditur de morte predicta. Ideo exigatur et utlagetur. Nulla 


habuit catalla. Ibid., m. 31, dorso. 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court ie, 


Sibilla filia Hugonis de Bello Campo appelavit in comitatu 
Johannem de Karliolo filium Michaelis de Rokesburg Thomam 
servientem Emme de Goldington Hagorem le Graunger Thomas 
de Hebnet Willelmum le Taillur Thomam Nodle Robertum 
fihum Hagonis pistoris Johannem fratrem suum Ricardum 
filium Nicholai Bere Willelmum Toffe Albinum le Pelett’ Rober- 
tum filum Willelmi Eliam Codling Willelmum Kempe et 
Gilbertum fratrem ejus et roberia et pace domini Regis fracta 
ete. Et Sibilla non venit. Ideo ipsa capiatur et plegii sui de 
prosequendo in misericordia Hugo de Louther clericus et Hugo 
de Bello Campo. Et Johannes et omnes alii veniunt. Et pro pace 
domini regis observanda inquiratur rei veritas per patriam. 
Et juratores dicunt super sacramentum suum quod non sunt 
eulpabiles de roberia ete. set dicunt quod ipsi ceperunt quemdem 
equum in villa de Colleby de predicta Sibilla quem equum ipsa 
ceperat loco nami ete’ et non in roberia. Ideo ipsi inde quieti. 


Assize Roll 982, m. 34. 


9. APPEALS IN THE COUNTY COURT OF NOTTINGHAM, 1280 


~Rogerus filius Henrici de Walkringham, Robertus filius 
Henrici de eadem et Ricardus filius Henrici Mannore de Valk- 
ringham appelaverunt in comitatu Thomam filium Ade Prat de 
Kstretford, Adam Payn, Rogerum Cocum hominem Walteri 
Prat, Adam filium Pagani de Retford de plagis verberaturis 
et pace domini regis fracto ete’ idem appelaverunt in comitatu 
Johannem Prat Robertum le Tanur’....de precepto et missione. 
Et predicti Rogerus filius Henrici, Robertus filius Henrici et 
Richardus non venerunt nee sequntur appella sua. Ideo ipsi 
capiantur et plegii sui de prosequendi in misericordia. .. . 
Willelmus Brock de Rampton appellavit in comitatu Johan- 
nem filium Rogeri de Ecton, Willelmum Cocum de Tirewell et 


1 And others named. 


156 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


Reynerum filium Galfridi Carpentarii de eadam de roberia 
verberatura et pace domini regis fracta etc. Et ipse non venit 
nee sequitur appellum suum. Ideo ipse capiatur et plegii sui 
de prosequendo in misericordia. Scilicet Wallerus Clericus de 
Rampton et Ricardus filius Galfridi de eadem. Et predicti 
Johannes filus Rogeri et alii appelati non venerunt nee fuerunt 
atachiati eo quod predictus Willelmus non sequebatur versus 
eos nisi ad unicum comitatum ete. Et juratores dicunt quod 
concordantes sunt et quod culpabiles sunt de verberatura et non 
de roberia. Ideo ipsi in misericordia. 

Matilda que fuit uxor Simonis de Clawrth appelavit in 
comitatu Hugonem ad Aulam de eadem de hoe quod ipse fraude- 
lentur et ad exhereditionem ipsius Matilde fieri fecit quandam 
cartam nomine ipsius Matilde de uno tofto et quinque acris terre 
in Schaftwrth. Et predictus Hugo non venit nec fuit attachiatus 
eo quod ipsa non sequebatur versus ipsum nisi ad unicum comi- 
tatum. Ideo ipsa capiatur et plegii sui de prosequendo in Miseri- 
cordia, scilicet Johannes de Ragne in Everton et Johannes filius 
Orth de eadem. Et juratores testantur quod predictus Hugo 
obiit. Ideo nihil de plegiis predicte Matilde ete. 


Assize Roll 669, m. 4. 


10. PROCEEDINGS UPON AN APPEAL DH AVERIIS CAPTIIS, 
TEMPORE, PROBABLY EDWARD I OR EDWARD II 


Hee est causa quare averia’.... non fuerunt deliberata eo 
quod cum Nicholaus praepositus de Poltimor veniret ad faldam 
domini sui et eam inveniret apertam et triginta sex averia 
inveniret ab ea fugata. Quique levavit clamorem cum ballivo 
libertatis iurato et sequebatur vestigia predictorum averiorum 
et invenit quemdam Ricardum Byale nomine predicta averia 
fugantem super quem predictus Nicholaus statim levavit clam- 


1Of six men named. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 157 


orem. Qui quidem clamore prosecuto captus fuit cum predictis 
averlis et adductus ad prisonam domini regis et ibidem impris- 
onatus cum prefatis averiis. Tandem venerunt dictus?.... et 
manuceperunt habere predictum Ricardum cum predictis averiis 
ad proximum comitatum tune proximo sequentem per ballivum 
et de iuri stando omnibus siquis versus eum prosequi voluerit. 
Ad eundem comitatum venit dictus Nicholaus praepositus et 
predictum Ricardum appellavit quod felonice et latrociniter 
venit dictus Ricardus tali tempore et hora noctanter ad faldam 
domini sui et averia illa furavit contra pacem domini regis. 
Composita forma appelli predictus Nicholas petiit a manucap- 
toribus visum predictorum averiorum. Qui quidem averia illa 
statim prompta non habuerunt sed tandem triginta tria venire 
fecerunt et tria averia inde de primo numero defecerunt unde 
predicti manucaptores requisiti et examinati fuerunt quare com- 
pletum numerum dictorum averiorum non habuerunt sicut 
manuceperunt. Qui obiecerunt et dixerunt quod nisi tantum 
triginta tria averia manuceperunt et de hoe posuerunt se inquisi- 
tioni et sacramento custodis gaole qui eis averia illa deleberavit. 
Capta inde inquisitione et per sacramentum dicti custodis gaole 
eaptum in pleno comitatu et per dicam inter predictos manu- 
eaptores et predictum custodem gaole de eisdem averius factam 
manifestum et approbatum fuit quod predicti manucaptores 
receperunt triginta sex averia per liberationem dicti custodis 
gvaole que prius manuceperunt. Ideo per considerationem totius 
comitatus consideratum fuit in pleno comitatu quod predicti 
manucaptores distringerentur per captionem averiorum et deten- 
tionem quousque fecerunt returnum predictorum trium aver- 
lorum absentium super petitionem visus eorundem averiorum 
in forma appelli. Et quia adhue predicta tria averia non 
returnantur averia sua subscripta causa detinentur. 


Chancery Miscellanea, bundle 96, file 1, Devon. 





2 The six named 


158 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


11. CUSTOM IN WESTMORELAND REGARDING THE APPEARANCE 
AND PLEDGING OF THE ACCUSED, 1278 


Et quo ad hoe quod predicta communitas queritur quod ipse 
vicecomes de feodo capere facit homines baronie predicte absque 
rationabili causa et ipsos in prisona detinere quousque graves 
redemptiones ab eis ceperit, dicit quod tempore Johannis regis 
avi domini regis nune quo tenuit comitatum istum in manu sua 
usitatum fuit quod si serviens juratus invenisset in baronia 
predicta aliquem hominem suspectum de latrocino seu de alio 
malefacto contra pacem bene liceret eidem servienti ipsum 
attachiare quod veniret ad proximum comitatum postquam 
ecaptus fuerat et ad tres comitatus post captionem illam se esso- 
niare et ad quartum apparere et tune oportuit ipsum ponere se 
in quatuor villas propinquiores loco ubi factum quod ei inpositum 
fuerat fecisse debuisset et tune oportuit ipsum invenire plegios 
veniendi ad proximum comitatum auditurum recognitionem 
villarum predictarum. Et si aliquis sic captus per suspicionem 
et veniendi ad comitatum plegios invenire non poterat tune 
liceret servienti illi ipsum capere et ad prisonam ducere et 
inprisonatum detinere usque ad deliberationem Gayole. 


Assize Roll 982, m. 23 (7 Edward I). 


12. MANUCAPTION IN THE COUNTY COURT, 1335 


Adam de Hodesdon nuper indictatus in comitatu Midd. de 
roberiis et pluribus feloniis qui postea de gratia domini regis 
speciali habuit cartam domini regis de perdono venit in pleno 
ecomitatu Midd. tento apud Braynford die Jovis proximo ante 
festum Sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni regis Edwardi tercii 
a conquestu decimo ecoram Rogero de Thornhull vicecomite* 
Tadenny this sheriff of Middlesex is an undersheriff. Roger de Thorn- 


hill does not appear upon the lists as one of the two sheriffs of London and 
Middlesex. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 159 


Thoma Wyhot coronatore eiusdem comitatus et produxit sex 
manicaptores virtute statuti ad ultimum parliamentum apud 
Westmonasterium editi vidilecet Jahannem de Durem civem et 
mercatorem London, Willilmum de Reygate de eadem, Johannem 
le Mareschal de eadem, Johannem le Cotiller de eadem Radul- 
phum de Drayton de eadem, et Johannem atte Hoo de eadem 
qui manucaptores predicti Ade devenerunt et ipsum Adam 
maniceperunt quod bene et fideliter in posterum se gererit. Et 
ad hoe iidem manicaptores terras tenementa bona et catalla sua 
ad quorumcumque manus devenerint obligarent domino regi et 
super hoe sigilla sua apposuerunt quam manicaptionem vobis 


Sud L0: Chancery Miscellanea, bundle 120, file 1. 


13. ORDER TO PLACE OFFENDERS ON THE EXIGENT, 1252 


Quia Rex accepit per inquisitionem quam coram eo fieri 
praecepit quod Gregorius le Sumenur Robertus garcio eius 
Nicholas filius capellani de Hardenuys, Willelmum filium 
Sumoniris, Elyas de Wyntington Ricardus clericus de Whyt- 
ineton Henricus de Berdelle interfecerunt priorem de Campania, 
ita quod culpabalis sunt de mortis [sic] de prioris mandatum 
est vicecomiti Hereford quod ipsos Gregorium Robertum et alios 
interogari faciat in comitatu suo de comitatu in comitatum done 
secundum consuetudinem terre Regis, utlagerentur. 


Close Roll 65, m. 3 d. 


14. ORDER TO PLACE AN OFFENDER ON THE EXIGENT, 1345 


Rex vicecomiti Lincoln’ salutem precimus tibi quod exigi 
facias Johannem atte Gildhous de Gretwell Rogerum Davy et 
Willelmum Lytt de Grantham de comitatu in comitatum quousque 
secundum legem et consuetudinem regni nostri Anglie utlagentur 
si non comparuerint. Et si comparuerint tune capias Et salvo 


160 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


eustodiari facias. Ita quod habeas corpora eorum coram justic- 
larlis nostris apud Westmonasterium in crastino Sancti Martini 
ad respondendum Roberto Germyn de placito quare vi et armis 
bona et catalla ipsius Roberti ad valenciam quadraginta 
librarum de denarlis suis pecunia numerata apud Grantham 
inventa ceperunt et asportaberunt et alia enormia ei intulerunt 
ad grave dampnum ipsius Roberti et contra pacem nostram. Et 
unde tu ipse mandasti justiciarlis nostris apud Westmonas- 
terium a die Sancti Hillarii in xv dies quod predicti Johannes 
Rogerus et Walterus non sunt inventi nee aliquid habent in 
balliva tua per quod possunt attachiari. Et habeas ibi hoe breve. 
Teste J. de Stonors apud Westmonasterium quarto die Februarii 
anno regni nostri Angle decimo nono regni vero nostri Francia 


‘ 
Nexto. Coroners’ Roll 256, m. 8. 


15. THE PROCESS OF OUTLAWRY, 13411 


Edwardus dei Gratia Rex Angle et Francie et dominus 
hibernie vicecomiti Ebor’ Salutem. Cum nuper tibi preceper- 
imus quod exigi faceres Willelmum de Crathorn de comitatu in 
comitatum quousque secundum legem et consuetudinem regni 
nostri Anglie utlagaretur, si non compareret, et si compareret 
tune eum caperes et salvo in prisona nostra custodires, ita 
quod haberes corpus ejus coram nobis in octabis purificationis 
beate Marie proximo preteritis ubicumque tune essemus in 
Anglia ad respondendum Petro Bagot de mahemio et pace nostra 
fracta unde eum appellat. Tu nobis ad diem illam retornasti 
quod ad comitatum Ebor’ tentum ibidem die lune proxima post 
festum translationis Sancti Thome Martiris? anno regni nostri 
Angli quintodecimo predictus Willelmus exactus fuit primo et 
non comparuit. Et ad comitatum Ebor’ tentum ibidem die lune 
proxima post festum assumptionis beate Marie*® anno predicto 


1 See also nos. 1 and 2, above. 2July 8, 1341. 3 Aug. 19, 1341. 


1926 ] Morris: The Karly English County Court 161 


predictus Willelmus exactus fuit secundo et non comparuit. Et ad 
comitatum Ebor’ tentum ibidem die lune proxima post festum 
Sancti Michaelis* anno predicto predictus Willelmus exactus fuit 
tertio et non comparuit. Et ad comitatum Ebor’ ibidem die lune 
proxima post festum Sancti Martini’ anno predicto predictus 
Willelmus exactus fuit quarto et non comparuit. Ac pro eo quod 
idem Willelmus termino Sancti Michaelis anno regni nostri 
Anglie quintodecimo venit in ecuria nostra coram nobis et 
reddidet se prisone marescallie nostre occasione predicta et 
invenit nobis sufficientem manucaptionem essendi ecoram nobis ad 
prefatum terminum ad respondendum prefato Petro de mahemio 
predicto et pace nostra fracta et quoddam breve nostrum de 
Supersedendo sub testimonio dilecti et fidelis nostre Willelmi 
Seot tibi inde pertulit per quod de exigendo predictum Willel- 
mum ulterius ad aliquem comitatum omnino supersedisti prout 
nobis ad prefatum terminum retornasti qui quidem Willelmus 
ad diem illam coram nobis non venit. Et ideo tibi precipimus 
quod allocatis predictis quatuor comitatibus ad quos predictus 
Willelmus prius exactus fuit ulterius exigi facias eum de 
comitatu in comitatum quousque secundum legem et consue- 
tudinem regni nostre Anglie utlagetur si non comparuerit. Et 
si comparuerit tune eum ecapias et salvo in prisona nostra 
custodiri facias ita quod habeas corpus ejus coram nobis a die. 
Pasche in tres septimanas ubicumque tune fuerimus in Angha 
ad respondendum prefato Petro de mahemio predicto et pace 
nostra fracta. Et habeas ibi hoe breve. Teste W. Scot apud 
Lenn’ Episcopi xij die Februarii anno regni nostri Anglie sexto 
decimo regni vero nostri Francie tertio. 


Coroners’ Roll 211, m. 5. 


4Sept. 30, 1341. 5 Nov, 18, 1341. 


162 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14 


16. AN ILLEGAL JUDGMENT OF OUTLAWRY, 1274 


Ricardus Sharp Robertus Brond de Genge Johannes filius 
Gregorii de Genge Johannes filius Henrici de Detheswyk Ric- 
ardus Urri de Farnbergh Adam Burgeys de Brythwalton et 
Johannes Tel de Lakyng simil fuerunt ad tabernam ad domum 
ipsius Ricardi Sharp in Westlakyng et a taberna illa omnes 
pariter in una societate recesserunt et cum ab inde recessi fuerunt 
per procurationem predicti Ricardi Sharp ad eamdem tabernam 
redierunt et ibidem invenerunt quendam Galfridum filium 
Gunnilde et antiquo odio ipsum insultaverunt et ostia domus 
ilhus taberne fregerunt et predictum Galfridum verberaverunt 
et vulneraverunt unde statim obit. Et Ricardus et omnes alii 
statim fugerunt. Primus inventor obit. Et compertum est per 
rotulos Coronatoris quod quedam Gunnilda de Chadelesworth 
que obiit appellavit in comitatu predictos Ricardum Sharp 
Robertum Brond Johannem filium Gregorii Johannem filium 
Henrici et Johannem Tel de morte predicti Galfridi filii sui et 
sequebatur appellum suum versus eos ad duos comitatus et ad 
secundum comitatum testatum fuit in pleno comitatu quod pre- 
dicti Riecardus Sharp Robertus Brond et Johannes filius Gregorii 
inprisonati fuerunt in custodia Henrici de Sottesbrok tune vice- 
comitis et nichilominus per sectam predicte Gunnilde vocati 
fuerunt simul cum predictis Johanne: filio Henrici et Johanne 
Tel qui non venerunt et per totum comitatum dictum fuit pre- 
dicte Gunnilde quod esset ad quartum comitatum versus omnes 
predictos appellum suum prosecutura ad quem ipsa prosecuta 
fuit appellum suum tam versus predictos Robertum Brond 
Ricardum Sharp et Johannem filium Gregorii testatos in prisona 
quam versus alios scilicet Johannem filiumt Henrici de Dethe- 
swyk et Johannem Tel de Lakynkt. Et ad comitatum illum licet 
predictus Ricardus Sharp extitisset in prisona manucaptus fuit 


1Blank. 





1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 163 


per Walterum filium Rogeri habendum ad quintum comitatum. 
Et predictus Johannes filius Henrici de Detheswyk manucaptus 
fuit per Willelmum la Rede et predictus Johannes Tel manu- 
captus fuit per Rogerum atte Tonesend habendum eos ad quin- | 
tum comitatum. Et compertum est per rotulos coronatoris quod 
predictus Robertus Brond qui testatus fuit in pleno comitatu 
esse In prisona per considerationem comitatus utlagatus fuit. 
Et quia predictus Robertus fuit in prisona ut in pleno comitatu 
testatum fuit qui ad legem stare non potuit consideratum est 
quod utlagaria de eo facta nulla. Et ad judicium de toto 


comitatu. Assize Roll 48, m. 36, Berkshire. 


17. ORDER FOR DECLARATION TO ANNUL OUTLAWRY, 1249 


Quia constat Regi quod per surreptionem curie Regis pro- 
cessum per iusticiarios Regis ultimo itinerantes ad_ placita 
foreste in comitatu Wiltes’ ad utlagariam promulgamdam in 
personas Henrici Trenchard et Willelmi de Wihitchurch famil- 
larium Hugonis le Bigod pro transgressione venationis in 
foresta de Melkesham quam quidem transgressionem eisdem 
Henrico et Willelmo ad instantiam dicti Hugonis Rex remisit 
Rex habito super hoe tractatu cum consilio suo decernit 
utlagariam illam nullam esse. Et mandatum est vicecomiti 
Wiltes’, quod in pleno comitatu suo dictam utlagariam nullam 
esse denunciat et hoe per ballivam suam publice clamari faciat. 


Close Roll 73, m. 9. 


18. ACTION UPON AN APPEAL IN THE COUNTY COURT CONCERN- 
ING STRIPES, MAYHEM AND BREACH OF THE PEACH, 1254 


Rex vicecomiti Wygornie salutem. Ostensum est nobis ex 
parte Ricardi Grisecote et aliorum hominum Episcopi Wygor- 
nensis appellatorum in comitatu tuo de plagis, maemia et pace 


164 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14 


nostra fracta per Edward de Folton’ Willelmum fabrum 
Willelmum Crote et Willelmum Cotimannum homines Willelmi 
de Bellocampo de Elimeley quod non vis eapere ab eis salvos 
plegios quod sint coram iusticiariis proximo itineraturis in 
comitatu tuo ad standum recto super predicto appello nisi prius 
se ponant in prisona nostra. Quia hoe contra consuetudinem 
regni est quod aliquis appellatus de pace nostra fracta impris- 
onetur nisi appellatus fuerit de morte hominis dum tamen salvos 
plegios inveniat ad standum inde recto coram iusticiariis nostris 
itinerantibus tibi praecipimus quod a quolibit praedictorum 
appellatorum capias duos salvos plegios quod sint coram prae- 
fatis iusticiaris ad standum recto super predicto appello et 
plegiis illis receptis 1psos pro predicto appello non inprisones 
set ipsos sub plevina illa usque adventum in comitatu tuo in pace 
esse permittas. Et habeas ibi nomina plegiorum et hoc breve. 


T. up supra per H. de Bath. Close Roll 67, m. 12 d. 


19. ACTION UPON AN APPEAL CONCERNING OTHER 
OFFENSES, 1262 


Rex Viccecomiti Surr’ salutem. Quia Semannus le Keu de 
gilingham appellatus per Robertum de Chisilford in comitatu 
tuo de verberatione roberia et pace nostra infracta invenit nobis 
Simonem Passelewe Robertum Northampt’ Alanum de Crepping 
et Willelmum de Haxci plegios quon’ manuceperunt eundem 
Semannum erit coram justiciarlis nostris ad primam assisam 
cum in partes illas venerint ad standum recto de appello predicto 
tibi precipimus quod appellum illud per plevinam predictam 
ajornari facias coram justiciarlis predictis. Et dicas praefacto 
Roberto quod tune sit ibi appellum illud versus praefatum 
Semannum prosecuturus si voluerit. Et habeas ibi attachi- 
amenta illius appelli et hoe breve. Teste ut supra. } 


Close Roll 78, m. 5. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 165 


20. A WOMAN’S APPEAL WITH PLEDGES FOR PROSECUTION, 1382 


Ad placita comitatus Lincoln’ appellatio tenta apud Lincoln’ 
die Lune in septimana Pasche anno regni regis Ricardi secundi 
quinto venit Isabella que fuit uxor Willelmi Gillyng de Barton 
Scuith in propria persona sua et coram Willelmo de Belesby 
vicecomite dicti comitatus et Petro Breton et sociis suis coronat- 
oribus comitatus predicti et appellat Thomam Norays de Barowe 
Thomam Bailly de Barowe et Willelmum de Birketon de Barowe 
taillour de eo quod ipsi die Lune proximo post festum dominice 
in ramis palmarum anno regni regis Ricardi predicti predicto 
quemdam. Willelmum Gillyng de Barton virum suum apud 
Barton felonice interfecerunt. 


Plegii de appello Willelmus de Wrauby de Barton 
suo prosequendo Johannes de Gayton de eadem. 


Coroners’ Rolls, no. 83, m. 3 d. 


21. AN INQUEST IN THE COUNTY COURT BY JUDICIAL ORDER, 
BERKSHIRE EYRE, 1274 


Et Hugo bene cognoscit quod predictum scriptum est serip- 
tum predicti Radulphi fratris sui cuius heres ipse est set dicit 
quod nichil habet per descensum hereditarium de terris et 
tenementis que fuerunt predicti Radulphi in comitatu Surr’ nec 
alibi. Et quod ita sit petit quod inquirat per patriam. Et 
Walterus et Isabella similiter. Ideo preceptum est vicecomiti 
Surr’ quod in pleno comitatu ete. diligenter inquirat si predictus 
Hugo aliquid habeat in ballia sua de terris et tenementis que 
fuerunt predicti Radulphi fratris sui per descensum heredi- 
tarium sicut predicti Walterus et Isabella dicunt vel non sicut 
predictus Hugo dicit ete. Quia tam etc. Et Inquisitionem inde 
distincte et aperte factam scire facias iusticiarlis ete. apud 
Oxoniam in Octabis Sancti Hillarii sub sigillo suo et sigillo 
earum etc. Et concessum est hicinde ete. 4... Roy 48 mes 


166 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


22. AN INQUEST TO ASCERTAIN WHO HAS COMMITTED AN 
OFFENSE, 1257 


Mandatum est vicecomiti Notingham quod in pleno comitatu 
suo et in presentia coronatorum diligenter inquirat per sacra- 
mentum xii proborum et lhberorum hominum de comitatu suo 
quo sunt illi qui verberaverunt et male tractaverunt Willelmum 
de Langeford et Robertum de Bedeford ballivos suos et namia 
capta rescusserunt de predictis W. et R. et habeat ete. coram ete. 
‘in erastino Sancti Hillarii corpora omnium illorum quos fuerunt 
culpabiles, per inquisitionem ete. et habeat breve. 


Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll 33, m. 3. 


23. AN INQUEST TO DETERMINE GUILT OF THE ACCUSED, 1260 


Q@uia rex accepit per inquisicionem quam vicecomes Wigor- 
niae in pleno comitatu suo coram custodibus placitorum corone 
regis elusdem comitatus fiere precepit quod Mattheus de Kancia 
captus et detentus in prisona regis Wigorniae pro morte Thome 
de Upton unde retatus est non est culpabilis de morte illa et 
quod idem Thomas per infortunium interfecit se ipsum, et quod 
idem Matheus non est captus ob aliam causam nisi pro eo quod 
fuit in societate predicti Thome quando interfecit se ipsum et 
quia Nicholaus Levenoth de Newenton Johannes de Tovecester 
Willelmus de Warnedale Thomas filius Roberti de Newenton, 
Elias de Pecce, Nicholaus de Newenton de comitatu Kanciae 
et Petrus filius Rogeri de parochia Sancti Dunstani London’ 
Petrus de Wodestret’ de London’ Mattheus de Kingeston Albertus 
de Chaumpeneys, Willelmus filus Rogeri London’, Walterus de 
Clare de civitate regis London’ manuceperunt habere predictum 
Mattheum coram iusticiis proximo itineraturis in comitatu 
Wigorniae ad standum inde recto si quis versus eum inde loqui 
voluerit, mandatum est vicecomiti quod predictum Mattheum a 
prisona predicta sine dilatione deliberet sicut predictum est. 


Close Rolls 75, m. 13. 





1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 167 


24. PROCEEDINGS RELATIVE TO THE GRAND ASSIZE, 1285 
Egregio principi domino Edwardo dei gratia regi Angliae 
domino Hiberniae et duci Aquitaniae suus devotus clericus 
Robertus de Scadeburg Salutem in eo per quem reges regnant 
et soli principatus aptissime gubernantur. Sciat vestre domina- 
cionis excellentia quod ad mandatum vestrum Matildem que fuit 
uxor Thome de Moleton de Gileslande adiuvi et ab ea quesivi 
utrum se posuerit in magnam assisam versus Johannem de 
Steyngreve in loquela que est in comitatu Ebor. per breve 
vestrum de recto inter predictum Johannem petentem et ipsam 
Matildem defore[iatam] de manerio de Thurgramby eum perti- 
nentilis exceptis undecim toftis duodecim bovatis et triginta et 
Sex acras terre in eodem manerio que respondit modo quod in 
ulterior! comitatu comitatus predicti videlicet die Lune in 
Crastino Sancti Martini anno regni tertiodecimo ipsa per 
Ricardum de Brivell attornatum suum in eadem loquela pro eo 
quod propter impotenciam suam tune ibidem personaliter non 
potuerunt interesse se posuit versus predictum Johannem in 
magnam assisam vestram et petiit recognicionem inde fieri inter 
eos, maius ius habeat in manerio predicto exceptis hiis que 
superius excipiuntur videlicet eidem Matildi sic ut modo tenet 
retinendo vel predictus Johannes sicut exigit recuperando. 

Quaesivi etiam verum bellum inter eos inde vadiatum esset. 

Chancery Miscellanea, Writs and Returns, bundle 136, file 1. 


25. ORDER RESPITING ACTION UPON A CASE IN THE COUNTY 
COURT, 1254 


Mandatum est? Kane quod loquelam que est in comitatu suo 
per breve regis inter L. Roffensem episcopum et Ballivum H. 
Cautuariensis Archiepiscopi de Otteford de capcione averiorum 
eiusdem episcopi ponat in respectum usque ad proximum comi- 
tatum suum. Ita quod loquela illa tune sit in eodem statu in quo 
nunc est. Teste ut supra per reginam et cons[ilium]. 


Close Roll 67 Me ee 
1 Sic. The word vicecomiti is omitted. pie ok (San 


168 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


26. THE WRIT PONE, 1260, 1292 


Edwardus Rex Angliae Dominus Hiberniae et Dux Aqui- 
taniae vicecomiti Lincolnie salutem. Pone ad peticionem petentis 
coram justiciarlis nostris apud Westmonasterium a die Pasche 
in tres septimanas loquelam que est in comitatu tuo per breve 
nostrum inter abbatern de Seleby et priorem de Thornholm de 
debito mille librarum quod idem abbas a prefato priore exigit. 
Et summone per bonos summonitores predictum priorem quod 
tune sit ibi prefato abbati inde responsurus. Et habeas ibi hoe 
breve et aliud breve. Teste me ipso apud Waverle xi die 
Februarii anno regni nostri vicesimot Wyk. 


[In dorso] :? sum$ 
Johnes cant de Redburn 
Regn le Veer de eadem 


Chancery Miscellanea 138, Writs and Returns, 19-20, Edward I. 


Pro Galfrido de Insula. Rex vicecomiti Berkes’ salutem. 
Pone coram iusticiis nostris apud Westmonasterium in Octabis 
Sancti Hillarii loquelam que est in comitatu tuo per breve 
nostrum de recto inter Filiciam filiam Walteri Godefrey Petrum 
et Galfridum de Insula tenentes de una virgata terre cum pertin- 
enciis in Westeote. Et dic prefate Felice quod tune sit ibi 
loquelam suam versus praefatum Galfridum inde prosecutura 
si voluerit. Et habeas ibi hoe breve. Teste Rege apud West- 
monasterium xvi die Julii. Quia predicta Felicia impetravit 
breve suum postquam idem Galfridus iter arripuit versus 
Bononiam causa studii ut sic ipsum in absentia sua per defaltam 


inciperet per consilium. Close Roll 73, m. 12 a (1260). 
1 Feb. 11, 1292. 


2 The sheriff ’s return on the back of the writ. 
3 The summoners to serve notice on the abbot. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 169 


27. WRITS OF CERTIORARI WITH RETURN, 1306, 1319 


Edwardus dei gratia rex Angliae dominus Hiberniae et dux 
Aquitaniae vicecomitibus et coronatoribus London’ salutem. 
Quia quibusdam |[certis de] causis certiorari volumus super 
recordo et processu eulusdam utlagarie in Willelmum Payn in 
hustengo nostro London’ nuper promulgate ut dicitur vobis pre- 
cipimus quod recordu et processu utlagarie predicte cum omnibus 
ea tangentibus nobis sub sigillis vestris sine dilatione mittatis et 
hoe breve. T. meipso apud Deverlacum xxii die Julii anno regni 
nostri tricesimo quarto. 

[In dorso] :7 

Willelmus Payn utlagatus est in hustengo London’ pro diver- 
sis transgressionibus de quibus coram rege in London’ nuper fuit 
indictatus, et hoe ego Petrus? Malorre sub sigillo meo vobis 
testificor quia coronatores de indictamentis ete. nichil habent. 


Chancery Miscellanea, bundle 109, file 1, no. 7, London, tempore 
Edward I. 


Edwardus Dei gratia Rex Anglie Dominus Hibernie et dux 
Aquitaniae vicecomiti Salopie et coronatoribus ejuisdem comi- 
tatus salutem. Quia quibusdam certis de causis certiorari 
volumus super recordo et processu ultagariae in Willelmum 
Shirreve in comitatu predicto ut dicitur promulgate, vobis pre- 
cipimus quod recordum et processum utlagarie predicte cum 
omnibus ea tangentibus nobis sub sigillo vestris distincte et 
aperte sine dilatione mittatis et hoc breve. Teste meipso apud 
Eboracum xvi die Aprilis anno regni nostri duodecimo Kelm. 

[In dorso]: Per cancellarium.? Scrutatis rotulis nostris 
nullum recordum seu processum utlagarie promulgate in Willel- 


1 The sheriff ’s return, written lengthwise on the back of the writ. 
2 Not on printed list of sheriffs. 


3 In this case the return is endorsed upon the writ not by the sheriff but 
by a chancery official. 


170 University of Califorma Publications in History (Vou. 14 


mum Shirreve invenimus tempore nostro set notorium est quod 
anno regni E. patris nune xxxi° predictus Willelmus indictatus 
fuit et utlagatus pro morte Willelmi Boult qui eum interficiebat 
in villa de Fytes in comitatu predicto. Robertus de Grendon 


est vicecomes, Chancery Miscellanea, bundle 128, file 2, Salop. 


28. INQUEST CONCERNING THE PROPERTY OF A ROYAL WARD, 
JUNE, 1258 
Quia rex accepit per inquisicionem quam per vicecomitem 
Cumberland’ in pleno comitatu suo fieri Rex praecepit et per 
legitimam probacionem quam per sacrum tam. militum quam 
aliorum lbrorum et legitimorum hominum coram rege, Rex .- 
recepit quod Walterus de Wyeton qui aliquando fuit in eustodia 
regis est propinquior heres Edwardi de Wygeton patris sui, et 
quod idem Walterus est legitime aetatis regis cepit homagium 
suum de omnibus terris et tenementis que praedictus Edwardus 
pater suus tenuit de Rege in capite in Ballia sua et de quibus 
idem Edwardus fuit seisitus in diminico suo ut de feodo die que 
obit et que occasione mortis sue capta fuerint in manu regis 
plenum seisinam habere facias. Close Roll 73, m. 6. 


29, INQUEST CONCERNINNG PAYMENT OF A DEBT DUE THE 
KING, 1263 


Mandatum est custodi pacis in comitatu Hereford et Ricardo 
de Baginden’ quod in pleno comitatu ete. par sacramentum xi 
ete. diligenter inquirant si Johannes de Balim solvit Emerico de 
Cancellis dum idem Emericus fuit vicecomes regis in comitatu 
predicto iii) li. et xiiis. de debito Walteri de Balim fratris sui. 
Et inquisicionem ete. habeant ad seaccarium in erastino Sancti 
Andreae sub sigillo ete. Et interim pacem predicto alteri de 
predictis denariis. 


Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll 38, m. 1 d. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court lal 


30. INQUEST CONCERNING VARIOUS DEBTS PAID TO 
SHERIFFS, 1271 


Preceptum est vicecomiti! quod in pleno comitatu et in 
presencia coronatorum eiusdem comitatus per sacramentum ete. 
de eodem comitatu per quos ete. diligenter inquirat que debita 
Regis Willelmus de Bykkele Johannes de Mucegros Simon de 
Gringham Radulphum de Esse et alii vicecomites regis aut eorum 
ballivi receperunt a diversis debitoribus regis tempore quo 
fuerunt vicecomites regis in eodem comitatu que adhue veniunt 
sibi in scaccarium regis et a quibus debitoribus et quibus occa- 
sionibus eadem debita receperunt. Et distringat predictos Willel- 
mum, Simonem, Johannem et Radulfum ae alios et eorum 
ballivos quos per eandem inquisitionem invenerit de predictis 
debitis aliquid recipere aut eorum heredes si qui mortui fuerint 
per terras et catalla sua. Ita quod eos habeat coram baronibus 
ete. in crastino Sancti Nicholai ad respondendum Regi de hujus- 
modi debitis receptis. Et scire faciat omnibus debitoribus illis 
qui proferunt tallias contra predictos vicecomites et eorum 
ballivos de hujusmodi debitis sibi solutis quod tune sint coram 
Baronibus predictis cum taliis suis per duos vel tres attornatos 
quos ad hoe coram dicto vicecomite attornare voluerint et quos 
recipiat ad prosequendum loquelam suam versus predictos recep- 
tores. Et interim, eisdem debitoribus pacem habere permittat 
ete. Et Amerciamenta ete. Et habeat tune predictam inquisi- 
tionem ete et nomina predictorum attornatorum. 


Eodem modo Mandatum est vicecomiti Cant’ et Hunt’. 


Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Memoranda Roll 45, m. 1. 


1 Of Devon. 


172 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


31. INSTALLATION OF BAILIFFS, 1278 


Et Rogerus de Clyfford vicecomes de feodo ratione Isabelle 
uxoris sue Aynecie filie Roberti de Veteri Ponte quondam vice- 
comitis Westmerl’ de feodo venit et dicit quod ipse non clamat 
nisi quatuor servientes scilicet duos equites et duos pedites in 
baronia predicta ad facienda ea que ad dominum regem et vice- 
comitem pertinent et ili coram vicecomite in pleno comitatu 
sacramentum prestarunt quod fideliter servient domino regi et 
populo pertinenti baronie predicte. Et si plures sint servientes 


in Baronia predicta ipsos deadvocat. Assize Roll 982, m. 23. 


32. THE ESCHEATOR’S OATH OF OFFICE IN THE COUNTY 
COURT, 1259 


Rex constituit Willelmum Russel escaetorem suum in comi- 
tatu Suff. Et mandatum est eidem quod officio illi intendat. Et 
vicecomes Suff’? quod ipsum Willelmum officio illi intendere 
faciat accepto ab eo sacramento in pleno comitatu quod eidem 


officio diligenter et fideliter intendet. Close Roll 65, m. 17. 


33. AN ABBOT’S APPOINTMENT IN THE COUNTY COURT OF 
AGENTS TO RECEIVE ESTREATS AND SUMMONSES OF THE 
EXCHEQUER, POST 26, HENRY III. 


Dicta controversia sub hae forma conquievit videlicet quod 
dictus Willelmus de Bello Campo pro se et heredibus suis con- 
eessit dictis Abbati et conventui et eorum successoribus quod 
Abbas Evesham quicumque pro tempore fuerit in comitatu 
Wigornie personaliter conparendo vel per litteras suas patentes 
ibidem directas constituat attornatos suos in dicto comitatu unum 
scilicet vel duos vel tres vel etiam quatuor ad recipiendum 
extractas de summonitionibus scaccarii et ad petendum curiam 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 173 


Abbatis si necesse fuerit. Et ad recipiendum extractas et alia 
precepta que consueverunt deferri ad portam Abbatie de Evesham 
exequenda. Et ad respondum [sic] et defendendum libertates eis 
concessas per cartas regum et confirmatas per cartas predictorum 
Walteri et Willelmi de Bello Campo. Ita quod unus eorum vel 
plures quem vel quos interesse contigerit ad hee omnia predicta 
facienda sine contradictione in dicto comitatu recipiatur vel 
recipiantur. Ita quod dictus Abbas quicumque pro tempore 
fuerit possit pro voluntate sua attornatos suos amovere et alios 
constituere. Si vero inter comitatus aliquid talium emerserit 
quod eceleriter exequi orporteat vicecomes Wigornie per litteras 
suas clausas hoc mandabit portario Abbatie de Evesham exequen- 
dum. Dicti vero Abbas et conventus pro se et successoribus suis 
concesserunt et bona fide promiserunt quod dictum Willelmum 
et heredes suos tanquam vicecomites Wigornie de omnibus 
tangentibus libertates contentas in dictis cartis reglis a dicto 


Willelmo concessis aquietabunt. Beane eaiae Delo 


34. READING OF A DEED IN FRENCH AND IN ENGLISH, 1295 


Hie sunt nomina q” fuerunt in pleno comitatu Essex’ cum 
multis aliis quorum nomina non sunt scripta quando littera 
manerii de Westlee lecta fuit et exposita apud Chelmersford in 
gallico et anglico, die Martis proxima ante Natiuitatem domini in 
anno elusdem M°CC° Nonagesimo Quinto, videlicet Dominus 
Walterus le Baud miles”. ... et quasi omnes liberi tenentes erant 
ibi pro undecima Domino Regi concessa. 


St. Paul’s MSS., no. 1063. 


1 Probably intended for que; but the writer may have omitted corwm or 
illorum and thought of this word as qut. 


2 Seventeen others are named here. 


174 University of California Publications in History |Vou.14 


35. EXECUTION OF A QUIT CLAIM, 1267 


Omnibus Christi fidelibus ad quos presens Seriptum venerit 
etc. Yssabella de Humas quondan uxor Gilberti de Brakeneberie 
salutem. Sciatis me in proba mea vidualitate dedisse quietum 
clammasse domino Roberto de Nevill et heredibus suis vel suis 
assignatis totum jus quod habui vel habere potui in villa de 
Pachort cum omnibus pertinentiis sibi et heredibus suis vel suis 
assignatis de me et de heredibus meis inperpetuum. Et hoe idem 
dicto Roberto de Nevill quietum clamavi in pleno comitatu Ebor’ 
anno gratie domini M°CC°LX°VIJ. Et ut hee mea donatio et 
concessio rata et stabilis permaneat huic scripto sigillum meum 
aposul. Huis testibus Domino Nicolao de Bolteby, Domino 
Galfrido de Ureshale, Domino W. Hacket, Domino 8. de Bhng 
Ricardo de Terni, Ricardo de Cancellario Willelmo Stabulario 


et multis aliis. Ancient Deeds, D. 146. 


36. READING OF CHARTERS AND LETTERS OF PROTECTION, 1254 


Mandatum est vicecomiti Westm® quod cartas regis quas Abbas 
de Bella Landa habet de libertatibus eis concessis necnon et 
litteras regis patentes de protectione ei concessas in pleno comi- 
tatu legi et libertates in eis contentas firmiter observari facere 
secundum quod carte et littere predicte testantur et hoe propter 
famorem et potentiam alitermodo non omittas. T/este] 
R{icardo] com|ite] Cornub. pro rege H. apud Norht. xii die 
Julii pler] com[item] Ricardum. Idem mandatum est vice- 


comiti Ebor. Close Roll 67, m. 4. 


1A blank in the original. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court io 


37. READING OF THE GREAT CHARTER, 1256 


Mandatum est vicecomiti Eborace quod magnam cartam Regis 
de libertatibus universitati Anglie concessis in pleno comitatu 
suo legi et libertates illas in singulis articulis suis tam pro parte 
Regis quam aliorum de regno Anglie in balliva sua decetero 
firmiter teneri et inviolabiliter faciat observari. Ita quod pro 
defectu sui in hae parte Rex ad eum graviter capere non cogatur. 
Teste Rege apud Clarendon xxiii die Maii. Et eodem modo 
mandatum est singulis vicecomitibus Anglie. 


Close Roll 69, m. 12 d. 


88. PROCLAMATION IN THE COUNTY COURT AS A STEP IN 
ADMINISTRATION, 1292 


Quia mercatores alienigene ac etiam quidam indigene regni 
regis de die in diem deferunt in idem regnum de partibus trans- 
marinis monetam Regis retonsam et aliam de diversis cuneis 
contrafactam monete regis commixtam, negociantes et mercantes 
de eadem moneta in dampnum Regis et totius populi regni regis 
non modicum ac etiam in subversionem totius monete Regis, Rex 
super hoe ne fortassis per tolleranciam longiorem periculum 
Majus imineat remedium adhibere volens mandat vicecomiti 
Norff’ et Suff’? quod in pleno comitatu suo et in singulis civi- 
tatibus et villis mereatoriis elusdem comitatus firmiter inhiberi 
et pupplice proclamari faciat nequis mercator alienigena seu 
etiam indigena vel quicumque alius hujusmodi monetam Regis 
retonsam seu etiam aliam de alienis cuneis contrafactam decetero 
in regnum Regis deferat vel etiam ea in mereando vel negociando 
utatur. Quod si fecerint prima vice qua super hoe fuerint 
deprehensi monetam illam retonsam vel etiam contrafactam 
amittant. Et si iidem interum in consimili delicto deprehensi 
fuerint monetam illam et etiam alia bona sua secum inventa amit- 


176 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


tant. Et si tertia vice idem delictum commiserint et deprehensi 
fuerint de corporibus suis et etiam omnibus bonis et catallis suis 
Regi totaliter incurrantur. Alii autem qui Mereatores non fuerint 
et monetam Regis retonsam vel aliam hujusmodi contrafactam 
habuerint. statim eam perforent et ad Cambium Regis trans- 
mittant de novo sub cuneo Regis cudendam alioquin in quorum-: 
cumque manibus moneta hujusmodi reperta fuerit Regi sit 
penitus forisfacta. Testa Magistro W. de Marchia, thesaurario 
Regis apud Westmonasterium iiij® die octobris anno decimo nono 
per breve de magno sigillo. 


EKodem modo mandatum est vicecomitibus in diversis comi- 
tatibus. 


Lord Treasurer’s Remebrancer’s Memoranda Roll 63, m. 31. 


Edwardus dei gratia ete. vicecomiti Ebor’ salutem. Cum 
mandaverimus Thesaurario et Baronibus de Scaceario nostro 
quod omnes carte quibuscumque prelatis vel magnatibus ab pro- 
genitoribus nostris regibus Anglie super quibuscumque lber- 
tatibus facte que xvilj° anno regni domini H. regis patris nostri 
fuerunt ad scaccarium nostrum allocate et etiam omnes carte 
quocumque tempore tam tempore progenitorum nostorum quam 
nostro concesse allocentur decetero in singulis articulis suis con- 
tentis in eisdem secundum quod prelati et magnates eisdem usi 
sunt licet compertum fuerit quod carte ille juxta tenorem easdem 
in singulis articulis in eisdem contentis tempore preterito non 
fuerint eis allocate dum tamen articulis illos usi fuerint exceptis 
amerciamentis quoscumque per considerationem curie nostre 
tangentibus proprus delictis suis que quietanciam inde per cartas 
hujusmodi clamant habere de quibus nostram intendimus facere 
voluntatem prout coram nobis et consilio nostro fuit alias ordin- 
atum. Proviso quod inspectis cartis de libertatibus post tempus 
allocationum predictarum dicto xviij° anno regni dicti patris 
nostri factarum perquisitis quas cartas coram eisdem thesaurario 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court ALY Gy' 


et baronibus citra terminum unius anni a die Sancte Michaele 
proximo futuro sub forisfactura perquisicorum illorum deferri 
volumus si compertum fuerit quod appropriationes alique de 
amerciamentis vel aliis lbertatibus ultra ea que specificata 
fuerunt in cartis predictis fiant auctoritate cartarum illarum 
tune omnes appelationes hujusmodi capiendas in manum nostram 
esse decrevimus et in manu nostra custodiendas donee aliud inde 
preceperimus et quod ea que specialiter in cartis hujusmodi 
contenta non fuerint decetero nullatenus allocentur in scaccario 
memorato et tibi precipimus quod in pleno comitatu tuo pupplice 
proclamari facias quod omnes ili qui habent cartas de liber- 
tatibus post tempus allocationum predictarum dicto xviij°® anno 
regni patris nostri factarum tam tempore progenitorum nos- 
trorum quam nostro perquisitis ipsas eartas sub forisfactura 
predicta habeant coram prefatis thesaurario et baronibus infra 
terminum predictum inspiciendas et examinandas juxta pro- 
visionem nostram predictam Teste Magistro W. de Marchia 
thesaurario nostro ete. xxvj die Februarii anno etc. xx° per breve 
de Magno Sigillo. 


Consimile breve mandatum est singulis vicecomitibus Anglie 
videlicet vicecomitibus Cumb’, Warr’, et Leic’, Glouc’, Nor- 
humb’, Salop et Staff’, Oxon’ et Berks’, Linc’, Hereford’, North’, 
Not’ et Derb’, Wigorn’, Bed et Bucks, Sumers et Dors’, Cornub’, 
Westmer!’. 


Cant’ et Hunt’ Surr’ et Sussex 
Norff’ et Suff’ Sutht’ 

Essex’ et Hertford Wilt’ 

Kane’ Devon’ 
Roteland Laneastr’ 


Ibid., m. 36. 


178 | University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou.14 


39. EXAMPLES OF THE WRIT DE CORONATORE ELIGENDO, 
1260, 1327 


Mandatum est vicecomiti Wiltes’ quod loco Walerand de 
Bluntisdon qui languidus est et sui impotens ita quod officio 
coronatoris nequit intendere ut dictur in pleno comitatu suo et 
per assensum eiusdem comitatus de legalioribus et discretioribus 
militibus de eodem comitatu eligi fac unum alium coronatorem 
qui praestito sacramento sicut moris est decetero faciat et con- 
servet ea que ad officium coronatoris pertinent in comitatu pre- 
dicto. Et talem eum eligi fac qui ad hoe melius sciat et possit 
intendere et nomen eius regem scire fac. T. ut supra. 


Close Roll 75, m. 4. 


Edwardus dei gratia rex Angliae dominus Hiberniae et dux 
Aquitaniae vicecomiti Bed et Buk satutem. Quia volumus quod 
coronatores tempore domini EH. quondam regis Angliae, avi 
nostri et domini E. nuper regis Angliae patris nostra ad officia 
coronatoris in comitatibus predictis exercenda electi qui suffici- 
entes existunt ab eisdem officiis amoveantur et alii coronatores 
idonei et sufficientes in loco ipsorum in eiisdem officis eligantur 
tibi precipimus quod in plenis comitatibus tuis de assensu 
eorundem comitatuum loco coronatorum illorum qui minus suffici- 
entes fuerint ad officia predicta exercenda eligi facere alos 
coronatores qui praestitis sacramentis prout moris est ex tune 
ea faciant et conservent que ad officia coronatorum pertinent in 
comitatibus predictis. Et tales eos eligi fac qui melius sciant et 
possint officiis illis intendere. Et nomina illorum coronatorum 
sic remanencium et illorum sic eligendorum nobis scire fae. T. 
de me apud Noting’ xiii die May anno regni nostri primo. Per 
ipsum regem. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 179 


[In dorso] : Phus de Ayl vie. Electi feci in plenis comitatibus 


de assensu, comitatuum illorum coronatores et que sufficientes 
existunt moram faciant in officiis suis et loco illorum qui minus 
sufficientes de novo recepi qui in predictis plenis comitatibus ad 


officia illa facienda sacramentum praestiterunt prout moris est. 


Videlecit. ae Chancery Writs and Returns, bundle 81, file 1. 


40. ELECTIONS OF OFFICIALS IN COUNTY COURT, 1258, 1345 


Quia Thomas Maunsel quondam coronator et excaetor regis in 
comitatu Buk iam decessit prout rex datum est intelligere 
mandatum est vicecomiti Buk quod in pleno comitatu suo de 
assensu elusdem comitatus loco ipsius Thome eligi facere quem- 
dam alium coronatorem et quemdam alium escaetorem de legal- 
ioribus ete. qui praestito sacramento ete. et vales eos eligi facere 
etc. et nomina eorum Regi fiere fac. Teste rege apud Wodes’ 
xl) die Aug. Close Roll 73, m. 3. 

Edwardus dei gratia rex Angl’ France’ et dominus Hiberniae 
-vicecomiti Hereford’ salutem. Quia Ricardus de Walsche nuper 
unus viridariorum nostrorum in Foresta nostra de la Haye diem 
elausit extremum ut accepimus tibi precipimus quod si ita est 
tune in pleno comitatu tuo de assensu eiusdem comitatus loco 
ipsius Ricardi eligi fac’ unum alium viridarium qui praestito 
sacramento prout moris est extunc ea faciat et conservet que ad 
officium viridarii pertinent in eadem foresta. Et talem eum 
eligi fac’ qui melius sciat et possit officio illi intendere. Et 
nomen eius scire fac’. T. me ipso apud Westmon’ xx die 
Decembr’ anno regni nostri Angliae decimo nono regni sero [sic] 
nostri Franci’ sexto.* 

1 The sheriff ’s return. 


2 Three of the coroners remain; one is replaced. 
3 Dec. 20, 1345. 


180 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


[In dorso] :* Willelmus de Radenore vicecomes respondet. 
Ricardus le Walshe nuper unus viridariorum domini regis in 
foresta ipsius domini regis de la Haie mortus est. Et in pleno 
comitatu Herford’ de assensu ejusdem comitatus tento die 
Sabbati proxima post festum Purificationis beate Marie virginis 
anno regni E. nunc vicesimo Johannes de Wychinton loco ipsius 
Ricardi defuncti electo viridarius [sic] de dicta foresta qui in 
eodem comitatu sacramentum praestitit prout moris est. 


Chancery Miscellanea, bundle 101, file 1. 


3 The sheriff ’s return. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 181 


B. County Court REcorps 


41. EXTRACTS FROM THE ROLLS OF THE COUNTY COURT OF 
CORNWALL,! HELD AT LOSTWITHIEL ON MONDAY BEFORE 
THE FEAST OF ST. THOMAS AND ON MONDAY THE 
MORROW OF THE DECOLLATION OF ST. JOHN THE 
BAPTIST, 7 EDWARD IITI2 


Trethewy*® Comitatus Pen.* 


Comitatus tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum 
translationis Sancti Thome anno regni regis Edwardi Tertii a 
conquestu Angle Septimo. 


Ballivus® comitatus presentat quod Henricus Wolweyn et 
Michaelis de Talstoys fregerunt attachiamentum suum attachiati 
pro cognitione et aliis demandis domini regis qui modo non 
veniunt. Et attachiati sunt per plegium ballivi et Willelmi 
Hobbe qui in misericordia quia ipsos non habuerunt et nihilo- 
minus attiachientur.® 


David de Boskenal queritur’ de Viviano de Pendro qui unam 
fecit defaltam in placito debiti. 


Oliverus® de Carmynou querens de Johanne de Rospygh 
essoniatur in placito debiti. 


1 The first extract is from Court Rolls, Public Record Office, portfolio 
161, no. 74, membrane 1. ; 


2 The dates are July 5 and August 30, 1333. 
3 Henry Trethewy was sheriff of Cornwall from July 5, 1333. 


4 Namely, Penwith hundred. These are entries in the county court record 
relating to matters belonging to this hundred. 


5 Margin: Attachiamentum. 
6 Margin: Misericordia xii d. 
7 Margin: Districtio. 

8 Margin: Remanet. 


182 Umversity of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


Ballivus dicit quod habet xiiij averia 


Ballivus® in Misericordia quia non levavit quinque Marcas 
de Willelmo Poer ad opus Ricardi de Bello Prato sicut ei pluries 
preceptum fuit et nihilominus preceptum est ete. | 

Willelmus Poer querens de Ricardo Mahalt de Trevistan qui 
unam fecit defaltam et Willelmo Robert’ essoniatur in placito 
debiti. | 

Willelmus Poer querens de Roberto Jan essoniatur in placito 
debiti. 

Ricardus de Fawe attornatus 

Philippus de Polsulsek per attornatum querens de Sibilla que 
fuit uxor Willelme Caul apparuit per attornatum in placito 
medi. Et unde queritur quod injuste eum non acquietavit de 
serviciis que Willelmus de Botraux ab eo exigit de libero tene- 
mento quod de prefata Sibilla tenet in Polsulsek pro eo quod 
tenet de ea unum mesuagium j acram terre Cornubie cum per- 
tinenciis in villa predicta per fidelitatem et redditum ijs. vj d. 
ad festum Sancti Michaelis et sectam curie sue de tribus in tres 
unde eadem Sibilla media est inter eos et ipsum acquietare debet. 
Et predictus Willelmus ipsum distrinxit per boves et vaccas ad 
sectam curie sue de Trenethou faciendam ad dampnum suum ¢ li. 
Et predicta Sibilla petit quid habet de acquietancia predicta et 
predictus’® Philippus dicit quod seisita est de serviciis suis et 
sic ete. 

Johanna! que fuit uxor Johannis de Carmynou per attor-— 
natum queritur de Petro de Carville Priore Montis Sancti 
Michaelis in Cornubia qui ij fecit defaltas in placito debiti. 


Inquiratur si depastus fuit bladum 


David de Boskenal queritur de Thoma Burwyk qui duas fecit 
defaltas in placito transgressionis. Et modo attachiatus est per 
- plegium ballivi qui in Misericordia’” quia ipsum non habuit. — 

9 Margin: Misericordia condonata. Remanet. 


10 Margin: Remanet. 
11 Margin: Districtio. 12 Margin: Misericordia iiij d. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 183 


David de Boskenal querens de Henrico de Pengersok esson- 
iatur de servicio regis post unam defaltam in placito transgres- 
slonis. 

Hamelettus'®? Wille de Bossucraon queritur de Gerardo filio 
Danielis de Sancto Maderno Johanne Gentil et Willelmo Gillot 
qui 11) fecit defaltas in placito debiti. 

Hamelettus Wille de Bossucraon queritur de Benedicto 
Cissore de Caegwyn qui i1j fecit defaltas in placito debiti. 

Radulfus Bloyon queritur de Stephano de Tregillion qui 11j 
fecit defaltas in placito transgressionis. 

Philippus de Polsulsek in misericordia'* pro duabus defaltis 
versus Ricardum de Mertherderwa in placito debiti. 

Radulfus Bevile*® queritur de Ricardo filio Bricii de Coyswyn- 
wolware et Marina sorore eius qui 111) fecerunt defaltas in placito 
captionis catallorum. | 

Adhue die’® datus est Johanni de Carmynou querenti per 
attornatum et Johanni de Kerthyn in placito debiti. 

Dies datus est Johanni Nicol de Ammal querenti per attor- 
natum et Willelmo de Penpons apparenti per attornatum in 
placito transgressionis. 

Idem Willelmus in misericordia’? pro ij defaltis versus 
eundem Johannem in eodem placito. 

Willelmus de Metheros'® per attornatum queritur de Johanne 
Mores de Tregergest qui vj fecit defaltas in placito captionis 
unlus equi. , 

Nicolaus le Taverner de Lananta per attornatum queritur de 
Johanne Mores de Tregergest qui vj ‘fecit defaltas in placito 
captionis averiorum. Et attachiatus est per plegium ballivi qui 
in misericordia qui ipsum non habuit.'® 


13 Margin: Districtio. 17 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 
14 Misericordia iiij d. 18 Margin: Districtio. 
15 Margin: Districtio. 19 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 


16 Margin: Da. 


184 University of Californa Publications in History [Vou. 14 


Johannes Melior in misericordia pro falsa querela versus 
Johannem de Kerchyn in placito debiti sicut compertum est per 
inquisitionem.°° 

Adhue dies datus est Alexandro de Tregillion querenti per 
attornatum et Radulpho Beaupo et Elizabethe uxori eius et 
Jordano Tremason apparenti per attornatum in placito de ration- 
‘abilibus divisis terre. 

Adhue dies datus est Johanni de Maunte procuratori domini 
Johannis de Modunta decani ecclesie Sancte Beriane querenti 
per attornatum et Willelmo Poer de Treugotthel apparenti per 
attornatum in placito debiti. 

Johannes Reyneward de Trewrunon”' per attornatum quer- 
itur de Johanna filia Johannis Brun que xix fecit defaltas in 
placito debiti. 

Juratores?? inter Nicholaum le Taverner de Lananta queren- 
tem per attornatum et Rogerum de Porthkellom apparenti per 
attornatum in tribus diversis placitis captionis averiorum dicunt 
quod predictus Rogerus tenet unum mesuagium et unum ecur- 
tilagium de tenementis obligatis in xs. que valent per annum. 
Et predictus Nicholaus petit judicium ete’ et quod quietus sit 
de redditu et petit dampna que taxantur ad vj d. si comitatus 
consideraverit et petit judicium de eo quod compertum est quod 
tenet tenementa obligata et quod redditus aretro sit et petit 
returnum. 

Johannes le Sor de Taluron?* per attornatum queritur de 
Johanne Beauchamp de Bynnerton apparente per attornatum in 
placito captionis averiorum. Et unde queritur quod injuste 
ceperint** unum jumentum Ricardi de Releigh unum jumentum 
Petri de Releigh et unum jumentum Laurentii de Releigh liber- 
orum tenentium Willelmi Brit, Willelmus le Brit liber tenens 
ipsius Johannis Sor qui tenetur defendere ete in villa de 

20 Margin: Misericordia iij d. 23 Margin: Inquisitio. 

21 Margin: Districtio. 24 Sic. 

22 Margin: Remanet. 


728) Morris: The Early English County Court 185 


Releigh in loco qui vocato Derendre et ea fugavit et imparcavit 
apud Brynnerton et idibem detinet ad dampnum suumecs. Et 
_ Predictus Johannes dicit quod non cepit et petit quod inquiratur. 

Ricardus de Bello Prato?®> per attornatum queritur de 
Henrico Wolweyn qui xx fecit defaltas in placito debiti. Ht 
modo attachiatus est per plegium Johannis de Rees et ballivi qui 
in misericordia*® quia ipsum non habuerunt. 

Johannes Kerchyn in misericordia pro injusta capcione ij 
equorum”’ Johannis Melior ad dampnum suum vj d. sicut com- 
pertum est per inquisitionem. 

Galfridus Michel de Porthie in misericordia”® pro ix defaltis 
versus Johannem de la Roche in placito debiti curie R. de Campo 
Arnulphi contingit. 

Ogerus de Caran queritur de Ricardo Hochekyn qui vij fecit 
defaltas in placito debiti. Et attachiatus est per plegium ballivi 
qui in misericordia quia ipsum non habuit.”® 

Ogerus de Carran*® queritur de Ricardo de Sancto Justo qui 
vij fecit defaltas in placito debiti. 

Inquisitio non prosequitur*! inter Petrum Blundel querentem 
per attornatum et Ricardum Bras de Merther et Sochium de 
Tregemynyon apparentes per attornatum in placito conventionis 
de eo quod convenerunt cum eo ad conservandum batellum suum 
tempore quo illum habuerunt ad piscandum contra quam con- 
ventionem venerunt ad dampnum suum Cs. remanent. 

Alanus de Treverthion Margeria®? uxor ejus Johannes West 
et Ivo Tursten per attornatum queruntur de Goscelino de Tre- 
gemynyou qui unam fecit defaltam in placito de rationalibus 
divisis terre. : 

David de Boskenal queritur de Hervico de Pengersek qui 11) 
fecit defaltas in placito captionis averiorum. Et modo attachi- 


25 Margin: Districtio. 29 Margin: Misericordia i1ij d. 
26 Margin: Misericordia vjd. 30 Margin: Districtio. 
27 Margin: Misericordia vjd. %1Margin: Inquisitio. 


28 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 32 Margin: Districtio. 


186 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou 14 


atus est per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum non 
habuit.** 

Ricardus de Campo Arnulphi queritur** de Radulpho Bloyon 
Johanne Hude Stephano Gilly et Willelmo Clemmon de placito 
captionis averiorum. Et unde queritur quod injuste ceperunt 
de avers David Soben unum equum de averiis Nicholai de 
Treuail unum equum de averiis Ranulphi Tursten duo jumenta 
eum pullis de averiis Thome Gonner tria jumenta de averiis 
Johannes de Annualwyn quatuor jumenta liberorum tenentium 
ipsum Ricardi et de averiis Reginaldi Gedden unum jumentum 
de averiis Gregori Conecham unum jumentum de averiis 
Johannis KEuduf unum jumentum de averiis Johannis de Bertelot 
duo jumenta. Et de averitis Bartholomei de Merther unum 
jumentum cum pullo precii*® liberorum tenentium ipsius Ricardi 
quos tenetur defendere ete in villa de Merther in loco qui voeatur 
Wyketysdon et ea fugaverunt et impareaverunt apud Triewal 
et ibidem detinuerunt ad dampnum suum xlli. Et predictus 
Radulphus advoeat capicionem pro eo quod invenit dicta averia 
in villa de Annuallibry depascantia herbam suam et non in villa 
et loco quibus queritur et petit quod inquiratur et alii in querela 
nominati venerunt cum eo in adjutorio absque injuria facta. 
Que quidem inquisitio remanet capienda per protectionem domini 
regis quam predictus Radulphus protulit duraturam usque 
festum Sancti Michaelis proximo futurum. 

Johannes de Treiagu queritur de Philippo Porkellam Odone 
Seripa Martino Petit Ricardo Hochekyn Thoma de Nancoitham 
et Johanne de Treganret qui pluries fecerunt defaltas in placito 
transgressionis. Et modo attachiati sunt per plegium ballivi qui 
in misericordia quia ipsos non habuit.*° 


Summa vs. xj d. Probatur. 


83 Margin: Misericordia 111) d. 35 Blank. 
34 Margin: Inquisitio. 86 Margin: Misericordia x d. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 187 


Comitatus*’ tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in erastino Decolla- 
tionis sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni regis supra.*® 

David de Lynyen querens de Roberto de Bosnaynon et 
Edwardo fratre ejus essoniatur in placito captionis unius equi.*? 

Rogerus de Trelewith per attornatum querens de Rogero 
Belwyn de Maula non summonetur in placito debiti.*? 

Johannes de Rostourok querens de Willelmo le Eir de Tre- 
welisik non summonetur in placito debiti.*® 

Ballivus in misericordia quia non attachiavit Henricum 
Wolweyn et Michaelem de Talstoys ad respondendum domino 
regi de attachiamento fracto ut eee patet ete.*° Et nihilo- 
minus attachietur.** 

Preceptum est ballivo levare C s. de bonis et catallis Willelmi 
Poer ad opus Ricardi de Bello Prato recuperatos in comitatu 
ete? 

Johannes de Rospigh in misericordia pro una defalta et 
licencia concordandi cum Olivero de Carmynou in placito 
debiti.** 

Ricardus Mehalt de Treuistan in misericordia pro una defalta 
versus Willielmum Poer in placito debiti.*4 

Adhue judicium inter Philippam de Polsulsek querentem per 
attornatum et Sibillam que fuit uxor Willelmi Caul apparentem 
per attornatum in placito medii remanet.*° 

Johanna que fuit uxor Johannis de Carmynou per attornatum 
queritur de Petro Carville priore Montis Sancti Michaelis in 
Cornubia qui iij fecit defaltas in placito debiti.*®° Kt modo 
attachiatus est per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum 
non habuit.** 

David de Boskenal in misericordia quia non prosequitur 
versus Hervicum de Pengersek in placito transgressionis.** 


87 Membrane 1 d. 48 Margin: Misericordia ij d. 

38 i.e., August 30, 1333. 44 Margin: Misericordia 13) d. 
39 Margin: Remanent. 45 Margin: Judicium. 

40 Margin: Misericordia vjd. 46 Margin: Districtio. 

41 Margin: Attachiamentum. 47 Margin: Misericordia iiij d. 


42 Margin: Remanet. - 48 Margin: Misericordia iij d. 


188 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


David de Boskenal per attornatum queritur de Thome 
Berewyk qui 11) fecit defaltas in placito transgressionis.*? Et 
modo attachiatus est per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia 
ipsum non habuit.*° 

Hamelettus Wille de Bossucraon per attornatum queritur 
de Gerardo filio Daniel de Sancto Maderno Willelmo Gillot et 
Johanne Gentil de Trestan qui ij fecerunt defaltas in placito 
debiti.®** 

Idem Hamelettus per attornatum queritur de Benedicto cissore 
de Caegwyn qui 11) fecit defaltas in placito debiti. Et modo 
attachiatus est per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum 
non habuit.*? 

Radulfus Bloyon per attornatum queritur de Stephano de 
Tregillion qui 111) fecit defaltas in placito transgressionis.** 

Ricardus filius Bricii de Coyswynwolward et Marina soror 
ejus in misericordia pro ij defaltis et transgressione facta 
Radulfo Beville ad dampnum suum ijs. in placito captionis 
eatallorum sicut consideratum fuit per eorum indefensionem,™ 

Adhue dies datus est Johanne de Carmynou querenti per 
attornatum et Johanni Kerthyn apparenti per attornatum in 
placito debiti.** 

Adhue dies datus est Johanni Nicol de Ammal querenti per 
attornatum et Willelmo de Penpons apparenti per attornatum in 
placito transgressionis.°° 

Willelmus de Metheros per attornatum queritur de Johanne 
Mores de Tregergest qui vij fecit defaltas in placito captionis 
unius equi.°® Et modo attachiatus est per plegium ballivi qui in 
misericordia quia ipsum non habuit.*” 

Nicholas le Travener de Lananta per attornatum queritur 
de Johanne Mores de Tregergest qui viij fecit defaltis in placito 


49 Margin: Districtio. 54 Margin: Misericordia iiij d. 
50 Margin: Misericordia iiij d. 55 Margin: Da. 

51 Margin: Districtio. 56 Margin: Districtio. 

52 Margin: Misericordia iij d. 57 Margin: Misericordia iij d. 


53 Margin: Districtio. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 189 


eaptionis averiorum.** Et modo attachiatus est per plegium 
ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum non habuit.*? 

Alexander de Tregillion in misericordia quia non prosequitur 
versus Radulfum Beaupel Elizabetham uxorem et Jordanum de 
Treurasan in placito de rationabilibus divisis terre.°° 

Adhue dies datus est Johanni de Maunte procuratori domini 
Johannis de Modunta decani ecclesie Sancte Beriane querenti 
per attornatum et Willelmo Poer apparenti per attornatum in 
placito debiti.® 


Johannes Reyneward de Trewrunen per attornatum queritur 
mortua 


de Johanna filia Johannis Brun que xxj fecit defaltas in placita 
debiti.® 

Loquela inter Nicholaum le Taverner de Lananta querentem 
per attornatum et Rogerium de Porkellum apparentem per 
attornatum in placito captionis averiorum remanet.** 

Inquisitio inter Johannem le Sor querentem per attornatum 
et Johannem Beauchamp de Bynnerton apparentem per attor- 
natum in placito captionis averiorum remanet.** Et preceptum 
est ballivo distringere Reginaldum de Treueglos, Henricum 
Wolweyn, Vivianum de Bosadwans, Johannem Westna et Petrum 
Blundel alias concessos et apponere.... ete.® 

Ricardus de Belloprato per attornatum queritur de Henrico 
Wolweyn qui xxj fecit defaltas in placito debiti.°° Et modo 
attachiatus est per plegium bellivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum 
non habuit.®° 

Ogerus de Caran queritur de Ricardo Hogekyn qui ix fecit 
defaltas in placito debiti.® 

Alanus de Treverthion, Margeria uxor ejus, Johannes West 
et Ivo Tursten in misericordia quia non prosequntur versus 


58 Margin: Districtio. 63 Margin: Remanet. 
59 Margin: Misericordia iij d. 64 Margin: Inquisitio. 
60 Margin: Misericordia iiijd. | 65 Margin: Districtio. 
61 Margin: Da. 66 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 


62 Margin: Districtio. 67 Margin: Districtio. 


190 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


Goscelinum de Tregamynyou de placito rationabilium divisarum 
terre unde breve.*® 

Inquisitio inter Ricardum de Campo Arnulphi querentem per 
attornatum et Radulfum Bloyon, Johannem Hude, Stephanum 
Gilby et Willelmum Clemmon apparentes per attornatum in 
placito captionis averiorum remanet usque festum Sancti 
Michaelis duratura per protectionem domini regis.* 

Johannes de Treiagu per attornatum queritur de Odone 
Seripa, Philippo de Porkellom, Ricardo Hogekyn, Martino Petyt, 
Thoma de Nancoithan et Johanne de Tregauret qui plures 
fecerunt defaltas in placito transgressionis.7° Et modo attachiati 
sunt per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsos non 
habuit.™ 

David de Boskeval in misericordia quia non prosequitur 
versus Hervicum de Pengersek in placito captionis averiorum.”” 
Sine returno. Henricus de Trewynnard queritur de Henrico 
Cortes. qui ij fecit defaltas in placito debiti.*® 

Thomas de Nancoithan per attornatum queritur de Benedicto 
filio David de Trewordano qui ij fecit defaltas in placito cap- 
tionis unius equi.”® Et quia ballivus visum de equo predicto 
habere non potuit ad deliberationem faciendam, ideo consider- 
atum est withirnamium.’* Et predictus Benedictus attachiatus 
est per plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum non 
habuit.”° 

Johannes Richard de Addestowe, Johannes Fraunces et 
Johannes Trut per attornatum queruntur de Petro Danne appar- 
ente per attornatum in placito transgressionis.“° Et unde 





queruntur quod cum quidam Petrus Norman mercator de ys 
ete. tenebatur eisdem Johanni Johanni et Johanni in duodecim 
doliis vini et predicta vina ad terram projecta apud Mareasion 


68 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 78 Margin: Districtio. 

69 Margin: Inquisitio. 74 Margin: Misericordia ij d. 
70 Margin: Districtio. 75 Margin: Withernamium. 
71 Margin: Misericordia x d. 76 Margin: Ramanet. 


72 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 77 Blank in MS. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 191 


ibidem attachiata fuerunt et arrestata per vicecomitem ad 
respondendum predictis Johanni Johanni et Johanni in placito 
predicto in comitatu quousque etec., ipse idem Petrus predictum 
attachiamentum fregit de predictis vinis in retardationem execu- 
tionis debiti ipsorum Johannis Johannis et Johannis ad dampnum 
suum C hi. 

Willelmus Cok per attornatum queritur de Petro Danne’® 
apparentem per attornatum in placito transgressionis.“* Et 
unde queritur quod asportavit unum gladium precii xl d. 

Attachiantur Thomas de Nancoithan et Willelmus de Nan- 
seglos ad respondendum de attachiamento fracto qui non 
venerunt, et attachiati sunt per plegium ballivi qui in miseri- 
cordia quia ipsos non habuit.” 

Summa vjs. ij d. Probatur. 


Trethewy. Poudr’ Comitatus®° 

Comitatus® tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum 
translationis Sancti Thome anno regni regis Edwardi tertii post 
Conquestum Anglie Septimo. 


Et® quia testatum est in pleno comitatu quod predicti 
Johannes et Philippus ceperunt xxvj agnos 1j oves matrices et 
j vacecam ipsius Willelmi et ea ad querelam ipsius Willelmi 
deliberare non permiserunt ideo adjudicatum est withernamium. 

Johannes Russel de Treysian*® querens de Udona de Nans- 
ladron Ricardo le Cu et Johanne Sonob essoniatur ultra mare in 
placito captionis averiliorum. 

John Billon** et Robertus Lestre queruntur de Johanne Dey 
et Willelmo Averey qui xlj fecerunt defaltas in placito compoti. 

78 Margin: Attachiamentum. 

79 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 

80 i.e., Powdershire, one of the hundreds of Cornwall. 

81 These extracts are from portfolio 161, no. 74, end of membrane 2. 

82 Margin: Withernamum. 


83 Margin: Ramanet. 
84 Margin: Districtio. 


192 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


Oliverus de Carmynon queritur de Alexandro Cantok qui xx°® 
fecit defaltas in placito debiti. Et modo attachiatus est per 
plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ipsum non habuit.*® 


Inquisitio inter Matilldam Crook querentum per attornatum 
et Nicholaum Pybon de Grauntponnt qui fecit defaltam ad 
primum diem postquam se posuit inquisitioni in placito debiti 
XXx1x s. xj d. ob in quibus concessit se teneri apud Westynaret 
in hundredo de West’ ad dampuum suum xx s. preceptum est 
ballivis de West et Pen’ quod venire faciant. 

Comitatus®® tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in Crastino Decolla- 
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni regis septimo.** 

Philippus de Carloys queritur de Johanne Blasy qui unam 
fecit defaltam in placito transgressionis. .... se 

Johannes Exoniensis episcopus qui de Michaele de Trew- 
ronek et Ricardo de Treres qui unam fecerunt defaltam in 
placito captionis averiorum.*® Et modo attachiati sunt per 
plegium ballivi qui in misericordia quia ispos non habuit.°° 

Adhue dies datus est Johanni Sor querenti per attornatum et 
Johanni de Penwern et Laurencio de Penwern apparentibus per 
attornatum in placito captionis ferri molendini ventrici. .. .** 


Kerr: 
Comitatus tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum 
translationis Sancti Thome regni regis Edwardi tertii septimo. 
Ricardus Bloyon ballivus in Misericordia quia non venit ad 
comitatum ad faciendum id quod ad ballivam suam pertineat. 


Comitatus®* tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in erastino Decolla- 
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste anno supra. 


85 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 90 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 
86 Membrane 3. 91 Margin: Da. 

87 August 30, 1333. 921.e., Kerrier hundred. 

88 Margin: Districtio. : 93 Membrane 4 d. 


89 Margin: Districtio. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 193 


Johannes Crochard querens de Rogero de Roskymmer et 
Johanne de Lambron non summonetur in placito debiti xxij s.%* 
Loquela inter Ogerum de Cleer querentem per attornatum 
et Johannem Stout apparentem per attornatum in placito deten- 
tionis unis bovis... .*° 
Inquisitio inter Johannem filium Bernardi de Penros queren- 
tem per attornatum et Henricum Serle apparentem in placito 
captionis averiorum remanet pro defectu juratorum.®° 


Bvrdracs 
Comitatus®® tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum 
translationis Sancti Thome anno regni regis Edwardi tertil a 
conquesto septimo. 


Comitatus®® tentus apud Lost, die Lune in Crastino Decolla- 
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni regis supra. 


Willelmus filius Rogeri de Penschawen per attornatum 
queritur de Henrico Gentil de Trefrawel apparente per attor- 
natum in placito captionis averiorum.’°° Et unde queritur quod 
injuste ceperunt li) vaccas j] equum et ij boviculos ipsius 
Willelmi in villa de Penschawen in loco qui vocatur Lurdre et 
ea fugavit et imparecavit apud Dygembret, et ibidem detinuit 
quousque deliberatio facta fuit ad dampnum suum Cs. Et pre- 
dictus Henricus cognovit captionem ut ballivus Hugonis de 
Langelond et Margarete uxoris ejus pro eo quod Johannes de 
Pencors tenet de eisdem Hugone et Margareta unum mesuagium 
et dimidiam acram terre Cornubie cum pertinentiis in villa pre- 
dicta ut de dote ipsius Margarete per servicium vij s. per annum 
ad duos anni terminos et sectam Curie sue de Dygembret de 
tribus in tres. Et pro vijs. de redditu unius anni aretro ante 


94 Margin: Summonitio. 98 Margin: Pydr. 
95 Margin: Remanet. 99 Membrane 6. 
96 Margin: Inquisitio. 100 Margin: Inquisitio. 


971.e., the hundred of Pyder. 


194 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


diem ecaptionis cognovit captionem justam ut ballivus predic- 
torum Hugonis et Margarete ut in feodo ipsorum et petit quod 
inquiratur et alter eodem modo. Ideo preceptum est ballivo 
quod venire faciat. ... 


Thomas le Ereedekne queritur per attornatum de Andrea de 
Pengelly qui xxx fecit defaltas in placito deibti.... 1% 


Comitatus tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum 
translationis Sancti Thome [ete. | 


Inquisitio’®® inter Martinum de Langaston querentem per 
attornatum et Winanum Tyrel apparentem per attornatum 
in placito debiti xxvij s. vij d. remanet. Et preceptum est ballivo 
de Py’ quod venire faciat eo quod contractus fiebat apud 
Sanctam Columbam. 

Comitatus'** tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in Crastino Decolla- 
tionis Sancti Johanni Baptiste [ete. | 


Johannes Prior de Bodminia querens de Johanne de Kerthyn 
et Johanne le Taillour preposito suo essoniatur in placito cap- 
tionis averiorum. . . .1° 


Inquisitio inter Nicholaum Galapyn querentem per attor- 
natum et Nicholaum Giffard de Lauonmur et Rogerum Abraham 
prepositum suum apparentes per attornatum in placito captionis 
averiorum remanet quia ballivus non retornavit panellum.’® 
Ideo in misericordia. . . .1°7 


Hugo Peverel per attornatum queritur de Ricardo Dewena 


qui unam fecit defaltam ni placito medii. . . .*° 
101 Margin: Districto. 105 Margin: Remanet. 
102 1.e., Triggshire hundred. 106 Margin: Inquisitio. 
103 Margin: Inquisitio. 107 Margin: Misericordia j d. 


104 Membrane 7 d.- 108 Margin: Districtio. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 195 


Lysnewyth com’? 

Comitatus'’® tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum 
translationis Sancti Thome [etc. | 

Loquela inter Walterum Godman querentem. Johannem de 
Hege-Stappe in placito detentione averiorum ij bovium remanet 
sub calumpnia curie comitatus Cornubie.... 

Comitatus' tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in Crastino Decolla- 
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste [ete. ] 


Khas capellanus de Pountestoke per attornatum queritur de 
Philippo de Wansant de placito captionis unius porei.!? Et 
unde queritur quod injuste cepit unum porcum suum precii Vs. 
in villa de Pountestoke in loco qui vocatur Tounfiore et illum 
fugavit apud Wansant quousque etec., ad dampnum suum xls. 
Et predictus Philippus advocat captionem pro eo quod predictus 
Elias tenet de eo unam domum et unum ortum cum pertinentiis ad 
terminum annorum unde locus captionis est parecella, per fideli- 
tatem et servicium ij s. per annum ad quatuor anni terminos, et 
pro vj d. aretro de termino Sancti Johannis Baptiste aretro ante 
festum predictum advocat captionem ut in feodo. Et alter dicit 
quod extra et petit quod inquiratur.... 

Sttam Com’!?’ 

Comitatus' tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum 
translationis Sancti Thome [etc. | 


non prosecutus 


Loquela’*® inter Ricardum Joliblod querentem per attor- 
natum et Robertum Goda apparentem per attornatum in placito 
conventionis remanet sub calumpia curie Johannis de Raleigh 
de libertate sua de Kileampton.... 


109 Lyshwithshire hundred. 113 i,e., Strattonshire hundred. 
110 Membrane 8. 114 Membrane 9. 
111 Membrane 8 d. 115 Margin: Remanet. 


112 Margin: Inquisitio. 


196 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


Comitatus''® tentus apud Lost’ die Lune in Crastino Decolla- 
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste [etc. | 

Ricardus de Treuger in misericordia quia non prosequitur 
versus Willelmum de Statforde ballivum de Stratone in placito 
captionis averiorum... .117 


Rogerus de Manely per attornatum queritur de Willelmo de 
Westecote qui ij fecit defaltas in placito quod reddat ei quod- 
dam scriptum obligatorium. Et modo attachiatus''* est per 
plegium ballivi qui in misericordia qui ipsum non habuit... . 


Est1?° 
Comitatus’”° tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum 
translationis Sancti Thome [ete. | 


Adhue dies datus est Johanni Trenoda querenti per attor- 
natum et Ade Priori de Launceton apparenti per attornatum in 
placito quod permittat villanos suos facere sectam ad molendi- 
num suum. 


Comitatus’”? tentus apud Lost’ die Lune Crastino Decolla- 
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste anno regni regis supra. 


Stephanus Trelaba per attornatum queritur de Adam de 
Strogenesdon et Vincencio de Strogenesdon executoribus testa- 
menti Ricardi de Strogenesdon de placito transgressionis.‘*2 Et 
unde queritur quod injuste vexaverunt eum in Curia Christian- 
itatis de catallis et debitis que non sunt de testamento vel matri- 
monio in contemptum domini regis ad dampnum suum Cs. Et 
predicti Adam et Vincencius petunt judicium si Curia istud 
placitum cognoscere velit sine brevi domini regis quod provisum 
est in consimili causu et sic remanet ete. ... 


116 Membrane 9. 120 Membrane 10. 
117 Margin: Misericordia vj d. 121 Membrane 10 d. 
118 Margin: Districtio. 122 Margin: Remanet. 


119 j.e., East hundred. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 197 


Westwevel Comitatus?”® 
Comitatus'** tentus apud Lost’ die lune proxima ante festum 
translationis Sancti Johannis Baptiste [etce. | 
mortuus 


Johannes Poddyng queritur de Willelmo filio Roberti et 
Martino atte Grove qui unam’”> fecit defaltam’®* in placito cap- 
tionis averiorum. Et quia testatum est in pleno comitatu per 
ballivum quod visum de averiis habere non potuit ideo con- 
sideratum est Withernamium v jumentorum. . f 

Comitatus'*® tentus apud Lost’ die Lune Crastino Decolla- 
tionis Sancti Johannis Baptiste [ete.] 

Johannes Crochard queritur de Odone Stor qui unam fecit 
defaltam in placito debiti. . . .1°7 


42. PERQUISITES: OF THE COUNTY COURT OF KENT, FROM 
MONDAY BEFORE THE FEAST OF ST. JOHN THE BAPTIST, 
48 HENRY IIT? 


Perquisita Comitatus Kane’ a die lunae proxima ante 
festum Sancti Johannes Baptiste anno xlviij quo die Fulco 
Peynforer recepit comitatum per breve domini regis. 

De Borga de Postling quia habuit Ricardum de Honi- 


wod quem plegiavit jm 
De Ricardo Berecario pro auxsilio habendo Xx § 
De Willelmo Amis pro eodem XX § 


Summa iii] mar 
Perquisita ejusdem comitatus die lunae* in crastino 
Sancte Margarete anno eodem. 


123 Westwevelshire hundred. 

124 Membrane 11. 

125 Sic. 

126 Membrane 11. 

127 Districtio. 

1 From Exchequer, Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Miscellaneous Rolls, 
bundle 5, no. 38. 

2 June 23, 1264. 

3 July 21. 


198 Unwersity of California Publications in History (Vow. 14 


De Thoma Coc pro auxsilio habendo xij d 
De Thoma de Palstre quia non venit llij s 
De Hundredo de Oxenat pro concelamento di mar 
De Thoma Malemeyns pro transgressione ij s 
De Letitia que fuit uxor Willelmi Greling qui 

retraxit se di mar 


Summa xxijs ij d 

Perquisita comitatus predicti die lune* proxima post 
assumptionem beate Marie nichil quia dominus Rex fuit 
presens et per comitem Leycestrie tenebantur placita. 

Perquisita ejusdem comitatus die lunae® in crastino 
exaltationis Sancte Crucis Nichil ut supra 

Perquista ejusdem comitatus die lune® post festum 
Sancti Dionisii anno eodem. 


De Willelmo Eybbode quia non habuit llij s 
De Martino de Newecherch pro habenda gracia dimar 
De Hundredo de Dunhamford pro concelamento xs 
De Hundredo de Feleberga pro eodem di mar 
De Borga de Trulegh pro transgressione di mar 
De Petro de Bareworfeld pro auxilio habendo di mar 
De Stephano le Clerk pro disseina vs pro bono 


Summa xlvs xij d 
Perquisitia predicti comitatus die lune’ in vigilo Sancti 


Martini anno xlix®. 


De Roberto de Warmilang pro transgressione Wie: 
De Symone de F'redenestede pro defalta xij d 
De Hundredo de Eyhorne pro transgressione di mar 
De Roberto le Ned pro eodem ; ijs 
De Hundredo de Toltintre quia non venit di mar 


| Summa xvlijs lj d 
Perquisita Comitatus predicti die lune® proxima post 
festum Sancti Nicholai anno eodem. 


4 Aug. 18. 5 Sept. 15. 6 Oct. 13. 7 Nov. 10. 8 Dec. 8. 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 199 


De Borga de Wonnesberga quia non venit ijs 
De Johanne atte Helle pro licentia concordandi xij d 
De Henricio de la Thone quia retraxit se ij s 
De Eustachio le Prode pro licentia eoncordandi Di mar 
De Coe de Haningherst et fratribus suis pro defalta ij s 
De Johanne Richard pro habenda inquisitione the 
De Waltero Jobinet pro auxilio habendo XX § 


Summa xxxvjs vijd 
Perquisita Comitatus predicti die lune® in vigilo 
ephiphani domini anno eodem. 
De Wyman de Fredenestede pro licentia coneordandi iiijs 


De Villata de Elham quia non venit liij s 
De Thoma Malemeyns pro eodem 1j Ss 
De Hundreda de Stutting pro eodem liij s 
De Roberto Serviente Willelmi Marmion quia non est 
prosecutus | ij s 
De Thoma Peytevin’ pro bona inquisitione habenda Di mar 
De Nicholao de Selling pro filio suo repleviato Di mar 
De Hundredo de Faversham pro falsa presentatione xxs 
De Borga de Scopesdon pro transgressione Di mar 


Summa liijs 
Perquisita comitatus predicti die lune’® in octavo 
purificationis beate Virginis anno eodem. 
De Roberto de Smerdon pro auxilio habendo xs 


Summa xs 
Perquisita comitatus predicti die lune’! proxima post 
festum Sancti Mathie apostoli anno eodem. 
De Rogero de Schamelesford pro licentia concordandi js 
De Henrico Kynot pro transgressione es 
Summa illjs 
Perquisita comitatus predicti die lune’? proxima post 
festum annunciationis beate virginis anno eodem. 


9 Jan. 5, 1265. 10 Feb. 9. 11 Mar. 2. 12 Mar. 30. 


200 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


De Hundredo de Beausberga pro defalta xs 
De Villata de Pynniton quia non venit ij s 
De Hundredo de Rokesl’ pro falsa presentatione j mar 
De Ricardo de Gedding pro defalta xij d 


Summa xxvjs lijd 
Perquisita'*® comitatus predicti die lune’* proxima post 
festum Santi Marce ewangeliste anno xlix®. 
De Luce de Bagport xij d 
Summa xij d 
Perquisita comitatus predicti die lune’® in vigilo Sancti 
Augustini anno eodem. 


De Hundredo de Wytstapele pro concelamento Di mar 
De Nicholao de Gerninde pro se et plegiis suis quia. 

retraxit se Di mar 
De Roberto Aleyn pro auxilio habendo . ijs 
De Borga de Menstre pro transgressione Di mar 
De Huberto Laveyle pro transgressione llij s 


Summa xxvjs 
Perquisita ejusdem comitatus die lune*® proxima ante 
Natalem beati Johannis baptiste anno eodem. 


De Johanno Malemeyns quia non est prosecutus ij s 
De Christina de Hamkling pro eodem xij d 
De Hundredo de Laverkefeld quia no habuit quem 

plegavit Di mar 


Summa ixs vilj d 
Comitatus tentus die lune*’ in Vigilo Sancte Margarete 


anno eodem. 
Nichil 


13 In dorso. 
14 Apr. 27. 
15 May 25. 
16 June 22. 


17 July 20. Monday, July 20, was St. Margaret’s day. The vigil by 
correct reckoning would have been on Sunday. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 201 


Comitatus tentus die lune’® in crastino assumptionis 
beate Virginis anno eodem Nichil quia eo die recepit 
dominus Rogerus predictum comitatum. 
Summa Summarum ex utraque parte rotuli lxxix li xx d ob. 


43. PROFICUUM1 ARISING FROM THE COUNTY COURTS OF ESSEX 
AND HERTFORD, FROM MICHAELMAS2 AT THE CLOSE OF 
42 HENRY III TO THE MICHAELMAS NEXT FOLLOWINGS 


Proficuum exiens de Comitatibus Essex’ et Hertfor’ 
die* anno regni regis Henrici xl tertio. In tempore quo H. 
de Montek’ fuit vicecomes, proficuarum eorumdem comi- 
tatum a festo Sancti Michaelis Anno xl secundo finiente? 
usque ad festum Sancti Michaelis proximum sequens® per 
totum annum integrum. 
Comitatus generalis Essex’ apud Langethorn die Mar- 
tis> proxima post octavam Sancti Michaelis anno xlij 
finiente. 
De Lamberto le Marchant pro auxilio habendo xs 
De Galfrido le Wafre pro defalta comitatus generalis ij 8 
Summa xij s 
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writel’ die Martis® proxima 
post festum Omnium Sanctorum. 
De Eadmundo de Purtea pro falso Clamore ij s 
De Ricardo del Fen et sociis suis pro licentia con- 
eordandi | lj 
De Ricardo de Ispania de fine pro se et plegiis suis 
quia retraxit se ijs 


18 Aug. 17. The Assumption of the Virgin fell on Saturday, Aug. 15. 

1 From Eachequer, Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Miscellaneous Rolls, 
bundle 5, no. 30. 

2Sept. 29, 1258. 

3 Sept. 29, 1259. 

4 Sic. 

5 Oct. 8, 1258. 

6 Nov. 5, 1258. 


202 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


De Ricardo de Vallo quia incidit versus Johannem 


Maudwyt Xie 
De eodem Ricardo pro eodem versus Humffridum 

filium Walteri xij d 
De Theobaldo de Feringer quia non est prosecutus 

versus Willelmum Becke ijs 
De Ricardo filio Johannis pro falso Clamore di mar 
De Philippo Freman pro plegio Petri Cardun xij d 
De Henrico de Crammavill de fine ante judicium xij d 


Summa xxs et vijd 
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writele die Martis’ proxima 
post festum Sancte Andree ad illum comitatum nichil. 
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writel’ die Martis® proxima 
post diem Natalis domini. 
De Roberto Bristrich et Willelmo King pro leentia 
conecordandi xij d 
De Godefrido de Lyston pro falso clamore js 
Summa iijs 
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writel’? die Martis proxima 
ante purificationem beate Marie 


De Johanne de la Lande quia non est prosecutus vs 
De Gilberto Osemund quia retraxit se xij d 
De Ricardo de Hemsted quia non est prosecutus iys 
De Willelmo Sig|[iljlo ut ponatur per ballium llij s 
De Rogero Curteys quia non est prosecutus ij s 


Summa xiiij s 
Comitatus Essex’ die'® Martis proxima ante diem 
Cinerum. 
De Alexandro de Stebbing quia incidit versus Arnewy 
de Stebbing xij d 
De Arnoldo le Brun de eodem xij d 


7 Dec. 3, 1258. 8 Dee. 31, 1258. 9 Jan. 28, 1259. 10 Feb. 25, 1259. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 


De Arnulpho le Parker pro eodem 
De Henrico le Messer pro eodem 

Summa ilijs 
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writele die Martis"’ in festo 

Annunciationis beate Marie. 

De Arnulpho clerico de Wodenham pro falso clameo 
De Rogero Blundel pro inquisitione habenda 
De Johanne de lafenne ut comittatur per ballium 


Summa vijs 


Comitatus generalis apud Langethorn die’? Martis 
proxima post clausum pasche. 
De Johanne Maudwit pro transgressione 


Summa ijs 


Comitatus apud Writel’ die Martis'* proxima ante 
festum Sancti Dunstani. 

De Matilda de Firstling quia incidit versus Baldewyn 
Tyrel 

De Ernulpho de Pilton pro licentia concordandi 

De Roberto de Ware quia incidit versus Willelmum de 
la Neweland 

De Nicholao de Lake quia non est prosecutus 

De Willelmo de Montek’ de fine pro warranto 


Summa xs 


Comitatus apud Writel die Martis'* in festo Sancti 
Botulphi. 

De Johanne de Sodfand pro licentia concordandi 

De Willelmo de Aete de fine pro warranto essonie 


Summa vj s 


Comitatus apud Writele die Martis'® proxima ante 
festum Sancte Margarete. 


lijs 
Daneel 
ls 
ij s 
ij s 


ij s 
llij s 


11 Mar. 25. 12 Apr. 22. 183May 13. 14June 17,1259. 15 July 15. 


204 University of California Publications in History [Vou.14 


- De Abbate de Waledon quia incidit versus Johannem 
Burre de placito captorum averiorum lmr 
De Bernardo de Leges quia incidit versus Traerum 
Apoel liij s 
Summa xvijs et ilijd 
Comitatus apud Writel’ die Martis'® proxima ante 
festum Sancti Laurentii. 


De Philippo de Firstling pro licentia conecordandi ij s 
De Johanne le Brun pro eodem ijs 
De Roberto de Camera quia non est prosecutus vj d 
De Symone de Aswell pro licentia concordandi ij s 


De Johanne de Bosco quia non habuit warrantum de 
Servitio regis ij s 
Summa viljs vj d 
Comitatus Essex’ apud Writele in Crastino Nativatatis 
beate Marie.*? 
De Petro Aubr’ pro transgressione - ijs 
De Ricardo de Badewe pro licentia concordandi ijs 
De Eadmundo filio Thome pro plegio Prioris de ) 
Pritelwell ij s 
De Radulfo de Wascoil quia non venit ad mquisitionem ijs 
Summa viijs 
Summa ¢exijs vijd pr 
Proficuum exiens de Comitatu Hertford’. 
Comitatus Hertford’ apud Hertford die’* Jovis proxima 
post quindenam Sancti Michaeli. 
De Philippo de Barewrth et Ricardo de Barewrth pro 


licentia concordandi ilj s 
De Alexandro Bonel’ pro defalta comitatus generalis xij d 
De Philippo del Ho pro eodem ijs 


Summa vjs 
Comitatus de Hertford diet® Jovis proxima post 
festum Sancti Martini. 


16 Aug. 12. 17 Sept 9, 1259. 18 Oct. 17, 1258. 19 Nov. 14. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 205 


De Jordano persona de Wendlington pro licentia con- 
cordandi ij s 
De Willelmo Mot messore pro eodem ij s 
Summa liij s 
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis®® proxima ante festum 
Sancti Lucie. ; 
De Roberto Ennibaud quia non venit llij s 
Summa illjs 
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis?* proxima post epiph- 
aniam domini. 
De Augustino Puttot et Sociis suis quia non venerunt  ilijs 
| Summa iiijs 
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis?? proxima post purifica- 
tionem beate Marie. 


De Ricardo atte Nore de fine quia non est prosecutus js 
De Roberto de la Haye pro eodem xij d 
De Ricardo de Sandon et Johanne de Camera pro 

eodem | lllj s 


Summa vijs 
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis?? proxima ante festum 
Sancti Gregori. | 
De Willlelmo Basset pro auxilio habendo Di mr 
De eodem pro quodam manupastu suo lllj s 
Summa xs et vijd 


Comitatus Hertford die?* Jovis proxima ante domini- 
cam palmarum. 
De perquisitis Nichil 
Comitatus Hertford’ apud Cestrehunte die Jovis* 
proxima post quindenam pasche. 
De Roberto le Bastard de Munden pro defalta comi- 
tatus generalis llij s 


20 Dec. 12,1258. 22Feb. 6. 24 Apr. 3. 
21 Jan. 9, 1259. 23Mar. 6. 25 May 1, 1259. 


206 Unversity of Califorma Publications in History [Vou.14 


De Johanne de Sealariis pro eodem ij s 
De Philippo de Merdelegh quia incidit versus Robertum 

le Chambleng’ ij s 
De Johanne Assebue quia non venit vj d 


Summa viijs et vj d 

Comitatus Hertford die?® Jovis proxima post festum 
Ascensionem domini. 

Ad istum comitatus de perquisitis Nichil 

Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis?’ proxima post festum 
apostolorum Petri et Pauli 

De Radulfo de Gravele pro falso clameo Dimr 

De eodem pro inquisitione habendo ij s 


Summa ixs et viij d 
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis?® proxima post festum 


Sancte Margarete. ? 
De Waltero de Cuberl’ quia non est prosecutus xij d 
Summa xij d 
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis proxima ante festum 
Sancti Bartholomei.”® 
Ad istum comitatum de perquisitis Nichil 
Comitatus Hertford’ die Jovis proxima ante festum 
Sancti Mathei.*° 
De Fratre Ivone de Watton et plegiis suis quia non 


est prosecutus ijs 
De Hugone Catel pro eodem ij s 
De Hugone de la Sele quia incidit versus Stephanum 

de la Sele ij s 
De Roberto Wrenne pro transgressione xij d 
De Galfrido de Brocholes pro eodem ijs 


Summa ix s. 
Summa lIxiijs xd pr 


26 May 29. 27 July 3. 28 July 24. 29 Aug. 21,1259. 30Sept. 18. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 207 


44, PERQUISITES!: OF THE COUNTY COURT OF DEVON FROM 
THE FEAST OF ST. CALIXTUS AT THE BEGINNING OF 
43 HENRY III2 
Devonia anno xliij° 


Comitatus die Martis proxima post festum Sancti 
Kalixti anno regni regis Henrici xliij°* incipiente. 
De Elya de Blakston pro iniusta querela versus 


Ricardum de sancto Gorono lij s 
De Gilberto de Hockeshull quia Walterus Coppe fecit 

legem versus eum js 
De Henrico Coppe quia Gilbertus de Hockeshull fecit 

legem versus eum ij S 
De Waltero Coppe et aliis executoribus Gilberti Onger’ 

pro falso clameo versus Alanum de Halleswurth dim marea 


De Gilberto filio Willelmi le Clere pro transgressione 
versus Adam de la Burgh xij d 
De Ricardo de Hethdon quia retraxit se versus Adam 
de la Burgh xij d 
De Willelmo de Hock quia Johannes Cole fecit legem 


versus eum ij s 
De Nicholao de Wadeheg’ pro iniusta querela versus 
Jordanum filium Rogonis ij s 
De Henrico Theobald’ pro defalta versus Thomas 
Chanterel xij d 
De Alicia de Winterleg’ pro iniusta detentione versus 
Willelmum Hakelond | ijs 
De Joelo de Baggewurth pro defalta lij s 


Summa xxvlijs vijd 


1 From Eachequer, Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Miscellaneous Rolls, 
bundle 5, no. 25. 

2 Oct. 14, 1258. 

3 Oct. 22. 


208 University of Califorma Publications in History (Vou. 14 


Comitatus die Martis in erastino Sancti Martini anno* 


ut supra. 
De Nicholao Dagevill pro iniusta districtione versus 
Willelmum Coppe dimidia marea 
De Johanne de Thribyr’ quia Willelmus de Boneville 
fecit legem versus eum ij s 


De Thoma de Luscote pro iniusta districtione versus 
Magistrum Johannem Wyg’ lllj s 
De Radulpho de Bus quia retraxit se versus John Math’ ijs 
De Walterum le Gros pro iniusta querela versus 
Agnetem de Beleston ij d 
De Waltero de Littlewere quia Henricus Coppe fecit 


legem versus eum jd 
De eodem Waltero pro iniusta querela versus Adam de 

Littwere 13-0 
De Radulpho de Siceavill de fine pro se et plegiis suis 

qui retraxit se versus Johannem le Despenser ; xs 
De Johanne Cole quia iniuste cepit averia Willelmi de 

Hok’ xij d 


De Roberta le Hordere quia noluit recipere legem 
Walteri prepositi de Exonia ijs 

De Alano le Lockshere pro iniusta districtione versus 
Johannem de Smal.... xij d 

De Galfrido Russel et sociis quia non habuerunt quem 
plegiaverunt js 

De Thoma de la More pro iniusta districtione versus 
Willelmum del Apeldor’ | } ijs 

Summa xxxvs vilj d 

Comitatus die Martis proxima post festum Sancti 
Nicholai anno® ut supra. 

De Ricardo preposito de Lyn de fine quia retraxit se 
versus Rogerum Fanel ijs 


4 Nov. 12. 5 Dec. 10, 1258. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 


De Emma que fuit uxor Walteri Chuist quia retraxit 
Sse versus Walterum Bodyn 

De Willelmo de Coleford pro transgressione versus 
Robertum de Coleford 

De Willelmo Russel pro iniusta districtione versus 
Willelmum de la Byriche 

De Nicholao Hureward quia retraxit se versus 
Robertum de Honneston 

De Olyvero de Dyneham pro defalta versus Ricardum 
Cole . 

De Ysabella de la Cleye pro iniusta querela versus 
Thomam Wombe 

De Emma que fuit uxor Walteri chuist quia retraxit 
se versus Willelmum de Bytedene 
| De Willelmo de Brekton pro defalta versus Robertum 
Baran 

De Rogero de Churleton pro iniusta querela versus 
Ivelum de Bukton 

De Johanne de Aguestighe quia non habuit quem 
plegiavit scilicet Rogerum de Mogue 

De Adam Holeman quia non est prosecutus versus 
Davil de Dene 

De Willelmo Russell quia non habuit quem essoniavit 

Summa xviijs vj d 

Comitatus die Martis proxima post Epiphaniam anno® 
ut supra. 

De Roberto Wancy ballivo hundredi de Cridieton quia 
non respondit de attachamento Johannis de Hyden 

De Olivero de Punchardon quia retraxit se versus 
personam de Anestighe | 

De Egnatio de Cliffton pro pluribus defaltis versus 
Galfridum Patte 


6 Jan. 7, 1259. 


209 


ABER 
ijs 
ij s 
xij d 
ij s 
xij d 
js 
xij d 
xij d 
xiv 


vj d 
xij d 


xa. 
ijs 


lllj s 


210 University of California Publications in History |Vou. 14 


De Nicholao de Wadeheye quia non est prosecutus 


versus Jordanum filium Rogonis js 
De Philippo Pruett pro iniusta detentione versus 

Ricardum Pearde iss 
De Abbate Tavistok’ de fine pro se et ballivis suis 

pro iniusta districtione versus Ricardum Cole xls 
De Roberto serviente de Lyn pro iniusta districtione 

versus Henricum de Croffte xijd 
De Olivero de Punchardon pro iniusta querela versus 

Willelmum de Mohun ij s 
De Willelmo Gambo et sociis pro transgressione ad 

turnum vs 
De Willelmo Gambo pro debito suo districto ij s 
De Waltero de Littlewe quia Henricus Coppe fecit 

legem versus eum xij d 
De Johanne de Vytery pro pluribus defaltis versus 

Robertum de Vytery | lj s 
De Rogero de Panchardon quia Johannes Paz fecit 

legem versus eum js 
De Waltero Corbin pro transgressione versus Thomam 

Puleyn ij s 
De _ Ricardo de Catt de Tanton pro debito 

districto | Dimidia marea 
De Gilberto de Galleshor’ pro pluribus trans- 

eressionibus Dimida marca 
De Nicholao Treydeners pro habenda inquisitione ij s 
De Henrico de la Pomeray pro iniusta detentione 

versus Abbatem de Nyweham ij s 
De Thoma de Luscote pro transgressione versus 

Johannem Wyger ijs 
De Waltero Coppe pro transgressione versus 

Gilbertum de Hokshull Dimidia marea 
De Henrico Coppe pro eodem Dimidia marea 


De Symone Casse pro eodem Dimidia marea 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court vAL 


De Editha Buneweye pro transgressione lij s 
De Willelmo de Chaygnes pro habenda inquisitione ijs 
De Henrico de Lexynton pro transgressione vj d 
De Henrico de Medton pro clamore iniuste levato vj d 
De Willelmo de Alre pro transgressione xij d 
De Thoma le Frane pro eodem ij s 
De Roberto de Coleford pro clamore iniuste levato xij d 
De Gunnilda uxore Henrici de Nymett pro trans- 
gressione vj d 
De Ricardo fratre ejusdem Gunnilde pro eodem vj d 
De Rogero de Wyk pro transgressione xij d 
De Johanne de Chiswill pro contemptu vj s 


Summa vjl vjs ij d 
Comitatus die Martis proxima post Purificationem 
beate Marie anno’ ut supra. 
De hominibus de Brampton pro respectu 


habendo Dimidia marca 
De hundredo de Blaketoriton exceptis lberis maneriis 

quia noluerunt respondere ad turnum sicut solebant xls 
De Henrico de Halleswurth pro defalta versus 

Ricardum de Brendeswurth xij d 
De Galfrido pro iniusta querela versus Egnatium de 

Cliffton et pro inquisitione habenda Dimidia marca 
De Adam de Totteleg’ pro iniusta querela versus 

Robertum de eadem vj d 
De Galfrido Bedello pro iniusta districtionem [sic] 

versus Reginaldum de Bodrigan x1,d 
De Waltero Tracy quia retraxit se versus Philippum 

de Bello Monte lijs 
De Adam Page quia non est prosecutus versus 

Henricum Snellard x10 
De Jordano de Curry et Nicholao de Lugewurth quia 

retraverunt se versus Radulfum de eadem lllj s 


7 Feb. 4, 1259. 


212 University of Califorma Publications in History [Vou. 14 


De Jellano de Correford pro transgressione 

De Willelmo de la Thorne pro iniusta querela versus 
Priorem Plimpton 

De Labyna de Hywys quia Ydonia de eadem fecit 
legem versus eam 

De Martino fabro quia retraxit se versus Rogerum de 
Jacobstowe 

De Roberto et Thoma le Chuist pro iniusta districtione 
versus Phiippum Bodyn 

De Emma que fuit uxor Walteri Chuist pro iniusta 
detentione versus Philippum Bodyn 

De Willelmo de Cranham quia non est prosecutus 
versus Henricum de la Bear 

De Laurencio de Bulkwurth et sociis pro iniusta 
querela versus Ricardum de Okston 

De Willelmo Comping pro defalta ad turnum 

De Waltero Therngo de Lugg Lingecote pro trans- 
eressione 

De Willelmo de Blak’ pro transgressione versus 
Ricardum de Bewurth 

De Radulfo de Chevereston pro transgressione 

De Roberto le Deneys quia retraxit se versus Rogerum 
de Clavile 

De Roberto de Middelond pro iniusta querele versus 
Willelmum de Hallesford 

De eodem Roberto pro iniusta querela versus 
Robertum -Pictavensem . 

De Nigello de Weteton quia retraxit se versus 
Bartholomum de Loriwell 

De Roberto Wancy ballivo Hundredi de Crediton quia 
non respondit de attachmento Laurencii filii Ricardi 

De Sabyna de Wulfhull quia retraxit se versus 
Ricardum de Py.... 


xijd 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 213 


De Nicolao Chukrel pro iniusta querela versus 


Martinum de Staford 7 xij d 
De Willelmo de Bremleg’ pro habenda inquisitione ijs 
De Alexandro Cole pro transgressione llij s 


De Willelmo Comping de fine pro trans- 
gressione Dimidia marea 


Summa exillijs vj d 


Comitatus die Martis proxima post cineres anno® ut 


supra. 
De Willelmo de la Tone quia retraxit se versus 

Johannem Hureward ? xij d 
De Radulfo Waremod pro iniusta detentione versus 

Drogonem de Oreweye xij d 
De Ricardo de Sebrittescote quia retraxit se versus 

Willelmum de Raleg’ xij d 
De Thoma de Cudingecote pro transgressione vj d 
De Willelmo de Wyteleye pro iniusta querela versus 

Abbatem de Torre xij d 
De Roberto de Champeans pro defalta versus 

Ricardum le Catt ijs 

~ De Waltero Molend’ pro transgressione versus 

Robertum le Venur xij d 
De Jellano de Challewill pro transgressione versus 

Robertum de Hylion llij s 
De Willelmo Bok pro transgressione vj d 
De Hugone de Hantenesford pro transgressione 

versus prepositum de Burington xij d 
De Alicia Flandr’ quia non est prosecutus versus 

Radulfum de Punchard VS 
De Joello de la Spyne pro transgressione xij d 
De Waltero de Holemore pro transgressione versus 


Pirorem de Frythelestok’ ij s 


8 March 4, 1259. 


214 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


De Johanne Paz quia retraxit se versus Priorem 


Totton’ ij s 
De Willelmo Byende pro defalta versus Gilbertum le 

Bustard — xij d 
De Radulfo de Ostaneston quia non est prosecutus 

versus Symonem Chartrey lij s 
De Philippo le Rus pro iniusta districtione versus 

Galfridum de Andevere vj d 
De Johanne le Blak pro iniusta querela versus 

Robertum de Winkeley’ ijs 
De Waltero Spear quia non habuit quem plegavit lllj s 
De Willelmo Pistore de Sutton pro transgressione xij d 
De Petro de Bydeford de fine pro transgressione lllj s 


De executoribus Stephani Banteyn pro debito districto xxs 
Summa lvijs vj d 


Comitatus die Martis proxima ante palmas anno? ut 


supra. 
De Petro de Dynebam pro iniusta detentione versus 

Osbertum de Stodpath ijs 
De Ricardo Snellard quia retraxit se versus Johannem 

de Wynescote xij d 
De Willelmo Russell quia retraxit se versus 

Willelmum la Zuche xij d 
De Rogero Pener pro iniusta detentione versus 

Radulfum de Lymbear xvilj d 
De Willelmo le King pro transeressione vj d 
De Willelmo de Medenelond pro transgres- 

sione Dimidia marea 
De Johanne Theobald quia retraxit se versus 

Willelmum le Mareys ij s 


De Roberto David quia retraxit se versus Laurencium 
de Wyk ijs 


9 Apr. 1, 1259. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 216 


De Gilberto Molend’ pro transgressione versus 
Willelmum Baufiz xij d 
De Hundredo de Cliston quia noluerunt respondere ad 
turnum sicut solebant XX § 
De Nicolao de la Cnolle quia retraxit se versus 


Nicolaum Treydeners ay 18 
De Willelmo Cole pro iniusta querela versus 
Robertum Lobbe ’ Xvlij d 
De Roberto Carpenter pro debito districto lllj s 
De Willelmo de Baldrington pro iniusta querela 

versus Robertum de Boclond Sol ea 
De hominibus de Moneculum pro respectu habenda llij s 


Summa xlixs ijd 
Comitatus die Martis proxima ante Inventionem 
Sancte Crucis anno’ ut supra. 
De Waltero preposito de Hatherleg’ pro transgressione ijs 
De Radulfo de Chalons quia retraxit se versus 


Robertum de Siceavill xij d 
De Waltero Peverill pro lege relaxanda wid 
De Waltero de la Hale pro defalta vj d 
De Gilberto de Langeford quia retraxit se versus 

Robertum Sokeling ijs 
De Abbate de Hertiland quia retraxit se versus 

Ricardum Treyminett Ij s 
De Alicia Aleron quia retraxit se versus Avelyna 

de Bissopleg’ vj d 
De Willelmo de Hakelond pro iniusta detentione 

versus Alicia de Buterleg’ vj d 
De Ricardo Marsilie quia retraxit se versus Roberto 

David ij s 
De Thoma de Buclond pro defalta vj d 
De Henrico Thungo de Brixstaneston pro transgres- 

sione js 


10 Apr. 29, 1259. 


216 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


De Egnatio de Cliffton pro pluribus transgressionibus 

versus Galfridum Patte xs 
De Ricardo de Pulewurth pro transeressione xijd 
De Ricardo le Hordere pro transgressione versus 

Johannem le Fulur’ lij s 
De Petro Chapere quia retraxit se versus Symonem 

de Grundeham lijs 
De Symone de Grundeham pro defalta versus Petrum 

Chapere xij d 
De Alexandro de Hausse pro transgressione versus 

Johannem Cole xij d 
De Symone Lamprey pro habendo inquisitione llij s 
De Reginaldo Chubbe de Brampton pro transgressione xij d 
De Godwino preposito de Ber’ pro transgressione 

versus Julianam Pandoxatricem Dimidia marea 
De Petro de la Lane pro transgressione versus 

Robertum de la Lane , ijs 

Summa xlvj s vijd 

Comitatus die Martis proxima post Ascensionem 

domini anno'! ut supra. | 
De Willelmo Horl quia retraxit se versus Ricardum le 


Sanger xij d 
De Ricardo Ynwardardesleg’ quia retraxit se versus 
Rogerum le Marchant xij d 


De Henrico Traz et sociis pro transgressione Dimidia marea 
De Rogero de Loges quia retraxit se versus Mariellam 


filiam Johannis xij d 
De Willelmo Angevyn pro iniusta districtione versus : 
priorem de F'ryhelestok vj d 
De Thoma de Luscote quia non est prosecutus versus 
Robertum Pitter ij s 
De Johanne le King pro iniusta querele versus | 
Mattheum de Bello Monte vj d 


11 May 27, 1259. 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 


De Johanne le Bedel de Bery pro iniusta districtione 
versus Johannem le Hore 

De Henrico de Crewecumb pro transgressione 

De Elya serviente de Honeton et Sociis pro transgres- 
sione versus Andream personam de Gydesham 

De Ricardo de Stafford quia Roberto de Lyw’ fecit 
legum versus eum 

De Willelmo de Boneville quia Waltero Sturra fecit 
legem versus eum , 

De Priore de Oteryton pro iniusta’? versus Rogerum 
de Stanton 

De Johanne de la Forde pro lege relaxanda 

De Ricardo le Caretter’ pro transgressione versus 
Willelmum Scott 

De Nicholao le Brok’ quia noluit recipere legem 
Willelmi le Venur 

De Willelmo Tuttebat quia retraxit se versus 
Radulfum de Puddeston 

De Rogero de Boclond quia retraxit se versus Thomam 
de eadem 

De Waltero de Francheyne quia Ricardus Treyminett’ 
fecit legem versus eum 

De Radulfo de Valle Torta pro eodem 

De Willelmo Turseins pro eodem 

De Ricardo filio Ricardi Treyminett pro eodem 

De Willelmo le Mol’ quia Thomas de Schepwasse fecit 
legem versus eum 

De Johanna le Fulur quia retraxit se versus 
Durandum servientem 

De Galfrido le Comere et Sociis quia retraxit se versus 
Hammes de Dertemuwe 

De Philippo Seclyppera pro iniusta detentione versus 
Philippum Purett 


12 Sic. 


217 
xij d 
xij d 

ijs 
xij d 
xij d 


1] 8 
xij d 


218 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


De Roberto de Gopewill pro iniusta querela versus 
Rogerum le Moygne 
De Nicholao de Wadcheye pro iniusta detentione 
versus Jordanum filium Rogonis 
Summa xxxllijs ijd 


xij d 


xij d 


Comitatus die Martis in festo Nativitatis beati Johannis 


Baptiste anno’ ut supra. 

De Jordano de la Ya quia noluit recipere legem 
Rogeri le Moygne 

De Roberto Huppohull quia retraxit se versus 
Gilbertum de Catthull 

De Ricardo de Branes quia retraxit se versus 
Willelmum de Caleheye 

De Elya Brestecumb pro iniusta detentione versus 
Emmam de Apewurth | 

De Henrico de Pomeray pro transgressione versus 
Renricum de Bukerel 

De Rogero Peverel quia Ricardus Wakelyn fecit 
legem versus eum 

De Galfrido de Churewurth pro iniusta detentione 
versus Philippum Pruett 

De Petro de Sancto Nicholao pro iniusta querela 
versus Rogerium Aurifabr’ 

De Henrico de Boneville pro transgressione versus 
Nicholaum de Bonevill 


De Alano de la Hele pro transgressione versus Lucam 


Horewode 

De Ricardo le Hordere quia retraxit se versus 
Walterum prepositum de Exonia 

De Radulfo de Syggewurth pro iniusta detentione 
versus Willelmum Bagbell 


De Philippo Pruett pro defalta versus Johannem de 


Chigule 


13 June 24, 1259. 


xij d 
xij d 
vj d 
xij d 
ijs 
xvuj d 
xij d 
xij d 
vj d 
xij d 
rive 
ijs 


xid 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 


De Nicholas Kykewandre quia non habuit quem esson- 
lavit 

De Petro de Asmundeswurth quia retraxit se versus 
Willelmum de Strockeswurth 

De Thoma de Megre quia noluit recipere legem 
Roberti le Luwenescotte 

De Mattheo de Wulfrington quia retraxit se versus 
Willelmum Franceys 

De Willelmo filio Jordani de Luscote pro iniusta 
demanda versus Walterum de Merewode 

De Willelmo de Hakelond pro defalta versus Aliciam 
de Butleg’ 

Summa xxlijs vjd 

Comitatus die Martis in festo Sanctae Marie Magdalene 
anno** ut supra. 
- . De Michaele Dagenill pro lege relaxanda 

De Nicholao preposito de Honeton de fine pro trans- 
eressione | 

De Luca Romyn pro iniusta detentione versus 
Ricardum Vicarium de Brawurth | 

De Rogero Swenekil pro iniusta detentione versus 
Julianam que fuit uxor Willelmi Drake 
- De Johello de Chingle pro iniusta detentione versus 
Philippum Pruett 

‘De Roberto le Chuist quia retraxit se versus 
Archebaldum de Pillond 

De Rogero le Moygne pro transgressione versus 
Oliverum de Punchardon 

De Ricardo Depegenasse pro falso clameo versus 
Walterum Peverel 

De Willelmo le Cornwaleys pro transgressione 

De Johanne de la Forde pro transgressione versus 
Willelmum de Webbelond 


14 July 22, 1259. 


219 


llij s 
xij d 
js 
xij d 
ijs 
Ij s 


ij s 
xij d 


ij s 


220 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


De Randolpho de Cumb’ quia Johannes prepositus de 


Luneneston fecit lezem versus eum lij s 
De Waltero de Holemore pro iniusta detentione versus 
Priorem de Frythelestok’ xij d 
De Laurencio de Bulkewurth quia retraxit se versus 
Willelmum Walerond xlij d 
De Roberto de Rok’ pro defalta versus bedellum de 
Stanburgam xij d 
De Willelmo de Penilles pro iniusta detentione versus 
Ysabellam de Lugheton xij d 
De Radulfo le Taverner pro debitis suis districtis i]s 


Summa xxviljs 
Comitatus die Martis proxima post assumptionem beate 
Marie anno’ ut supra. 
De Ricardo le Escoz quia retraxit se versus Thomam 


de Hettfeld vj d 
De Nicholao bedello de Colrigg’ et sociis pro trans- © 
gressione versus ballivum de Hurburton xij d 


De Phillippo Bodyn pro inquisitione habenda Dimidia marea 
De Rogero de Moringeston pro iniusta querela versus 


Ricardum Gambon xij d 
De Reginaldo de Lyn pro defalta versus Rogerum 

Fanel ; xij d 
De Olyvero de Punch[ar]don pro iniusta querela 

versus Rogerum le Moygne xij d 
De Nicholao le Dourys quia retraxit se versus 

Rogerum de la Pomeray } xij d 
De Rogero Wakelyn pro transgressione versus 

Rogerum Perevill Dimidia marea 


Summa xvlijs xd 


Comitatus die Martis proxima post festum exaltationis 
Sancte Crucis anno’® ut supra. 


15 Aug. 19, 1259. 16 Sept. 16, 1259. 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 


De Willelmo de Clugny pro defalta versus Walterum 


Hamelin 

De Mattheo de Bello Monte quia retraxit se versus 
Adam Cobbe 

De Ricardo le Bastard quia Lucas persona de Bery 
fecit legem versus eum 

De Willelmo Bunecheriche quia retraxit se versus 
Henricum de Horton 

De Nichola de Crues quia Willelmo de Crues fecit 
legem versus eam 

De Willelmo de Crues quia Nichola de Crues fecit 
legem versus eum 

De Joello de Stokes pro iniusta districtione versus 
Henricum Batyn 

De Johanne de Alneto pro transgressione versus 
Alexandrum de Okeston 

De Ricardo Sparschefft pro iniusta querela versus 
W. de Punchardon 

De Editha relicta Palmeri quia retraxit se versus 
Ricardum Last 


De Galfrido filio Warini quia defecit de lege facienda 


versus Mabilam de la Clive 


De Gervasio de Uppecote quia Willelmus de Godeford 


fecit legem versus eum 


De Henrico de Bykeleg’ quia retraxit se versus Adam 


Neirberd 

De Hugone Conduit pro iniusta districtione versus 
Ricardum de la Beer 

De Waltero Swhift pro lege relaxanda 

De Johanne de la Leye pro iniusta querela versus 
Isabellam de la Stone 

De Gilberto Coppa quia Alexander de Craneford 
fecit legem versus eum 


221 


222 University of California Publications in History [Vou. 14 


De Martino de Porlemuwe quia defecit de lege 
facienda versus Robertum de Rak’ 

De Engclesia de Gatepath pro iniusta querela versus 
Ricardum Tryminett 

De Nicholao de Huppestubbe quia defecit de lege 
facienda versus Willelmum Huppesant’ 

De Waltero de Littlewer’ quia non est prosecutus 
versus Walterum Coppe 

De Willelmo de Hywys pro iniusta versus Ydonia de 
Hywys 

De Godefrido Elys et sociis pro iniusta districtione 
versus Ricardum Russell 

De Waltero de la Stantor pro iniusta querela versus 
Rogerum filium Drogonis 

De Henrico Bysuthedone pro iniusta querela versus 
Priorem Barnastapoll 

De Symone de la Hethe quia retraxit se versus 
Rogerum filium Drogonis 

De Tholomio le Breton pro iniusta detentione versus 
Sabinam de Wulfhull 

De Roberto le Scerclur quia retraxit se versus 
Ricardum le Teingtur’ 

De Nicholao de la Rode pro transgressione versus 
Petrum de Sancto Nicholao 

De Radulfo le Orb pro transgressione versus 
Ricardum de Hale 

De Jacobo le Petitt pro transgressione versus 
Nicholaum Corbin 

De Willelmo le Vel quia retraxit se versus Priorem 
Plimpton 

De Waltero de Bytedene pro transgressione versus 
Emmam que fuit uxor Walteri Chuist 


1926] Morris: The Early English County Court 


223 


De Rogone filio Simonis pro respectu habenda Dimidia marea 


De Manerio de Brampton pro evasio Walteri Jagge 


Cs 


De Waltero de la Sele et sociis pro respectu habenda j marca 


Summa viiij li et xij s 


45. AMERCEMENTS1 IN THE COUNTY COURT OF YORKSHIRE, 
FROM OCTOBER, 42 HENRY III, TO SEPTEMBER, 43 HENRY 


III2 


Amerciamenta comitatus Ebor. proxima post festum 
Sancte Michaeli anno regni regis xlij* incipiente tercio 
tempore W. le Latimer. 

De Willelmo de Sancto Quintino quia non est prose- 
cutus . 

De Johanne de Actona et Thoma de Brustewyk pro 
plegio ejusdem 

De Alano filio Petri de Knappton quia Henricus de 
Merston fecit ei legem 

De. Hugone Tylevyr’ pro falso clameo 

De Priore de Feryby quia non est prosecutus 

De Petro filio Odonis et Ricardo filio Galfridi pro 
plegio ejusdem 

De Willelmo de Averynges quia non est prosecutus 
pro se et plegiis suis 

De Willelmo filio Roberti de Aghenlyth quia non est 
prosecutus , 

De Thoma Alewys et Roberto Freman per plegios 

De Henrico Toppan quia non est prosecutus pro se et 
plegiis suis 


jm 


dim 


ij s 
dim 


dim 


1 From Exchequer, Lord Treasurer’s Remembrancer’s Miscellaneous Rolls, 


bundle 6, no. 23. 
2-Oct., 1258-Sept., 1259. 


3 The county court of Yorkshire met on Monday (above, p. 160 and p. 


227); the date is presumably September 30, 1258. 


224 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 


De Magistro Roberto de Kirkeham pro attornato 
habendo 

De Boneauvy genere Jocey jJudeo pro auxilio 

De Thoma filio Willelmi Merston pro auxilio 
De Roberto Walesrun et Willelmo filio Ranulphi pro 


De Roberto Ingram pro attornato habendo 

De Waltero de Grendall pro essonia remittenda 
comitatui 

De Godefrido de Alta Ripa pro essonia comitatui et 
trihing’ remittenda 

De Willelmo de Marton pro eodem 

De Willelmo Scotico de Calverlye pro eodem 

De Willelmo de Harrum pro secta comitatus primi 
relaxanda 

De Priorissa de Munketon pro eodem 

De Willelmo de Silkok pro eodem 

De Radulfo de Tilly et Petro de Rothfeld pro plegiio 

De Nigello de Stokild quia essoniator non venit pro se 
essoniatore et plegiis 

De Philippo de Briceby pro auxilio 


Defalta ad eundem Comitatum 


De Reginaldo filio Petri pro defalta 

De Rogero de Burton pro eodem 

De Johanne filio Symonis de Eyton pro eodem 

De Ricardo de Brews pro eodem 

De Ricardo de Menthorp pro eodem 

De Roberto Burdon pro eodem 

De Roberto de Aldewerk quia non est prosecutus 

De Philippo de Fauconberge quia essoniator non venit 
pro se essoniatore et plegiis | 

De Alano de Lek pro warranto essonie 

Summa xli xvjs et vij d 


llij s 
im 
dim 


jm 
dim 


lj s 
lilj s 
ijs 


liij s 
liij s 
ijs 
jm 


dim 
dim 


dim 
illj s 

ij s 

jm 
dim 
dim 
dim 


dim 
ij s 


1926] 


Amerciamenta Comitatus proximas post festum omnium 


Morris: The Early English County Court 


Sanctorum.? 


De 


De 
De 


Gilyano de Pothehow pro essonia relaxanda 
Magistro Willelmo de Burgo pro eodem 
Willelmo Ward pro eodem 

Thoma de Colvyll seniore pro eodem 

Ambrosyo de Camera pro eodem 

Ricardo de Wathsand pro eodem 

Elya de Flamyll pro eodem 

Henrico Mauleverer pro eodem 

Willelmo de Wyvyll pro eodem 

Roberto de Plumpton pro eodem 

Marmeduco Darell pro eodem 

Ivone de Punchardon pro eodem 

Ricardo de Ripariis pro eodem 

Willelmo de Bossall pro eodem 

Alano de Aldefeld pro eodem 

Priorissa de Thycheued pro eodem 

Ricardo de Thong pro duobus essoniis remittendis 
Johanne de Bulmer pro secta comitatus relaxanda 
Radulfo de Bechum pro essonia remittenda 
Johanne filio Willelmi de Fulford pro eodem 
Galfrido de Uppesall quia essoniator de communi 


secta non venit 


De 


Ricardo Gramatico pro eodem pro se essoniatore 


suo et plegiis 


De 
De 
De 


Adam de Everingham pro attornato habendo 
Willelmo de Saleok pro essonia remittenda 
Walranno de Rocheford quia essoniator de com- 


muni secta non venit 


4 Nov. 4, 1258. 


229 


llij s 
dim 
js 
lllj s 
ijs 
ij s 
js 
js 
js 
ijs 
ij s 
js 
ij s 
js 
ij s 


xij den 


llij s 
vj Ss 
ijs 
ijs 


226 University of Califorma Publications in History |Vou.14 


Defalta Trihing’ apud Carton 


De Alicia de Bernak quia essoniator non venit pro 
se essoniatore suo et plegiis 

De Ricardo le Walays in Acclum quia essoniator non 
venit pro se essoniatore suo et plegiis 

De Willelmo de Langewayt pro eodem 

De Ricardo Gramatico pro eodem 


Defalta Trihing’ apud Windeyates anno eodem 


De Franco le Tyas pro defalta 
De herede de Scheppeley pro eodem 
Summa vj li xijs iijd 
Item Amerciamenta comitatus proximi post festum 
omnum Sanctorum anno eodem. 
De Angn’ de Lunppenhill quia non est prosecutus 
De Johanne filio Johannis et Roberto filio Alexandri 
pro plegio eiusdem 
De Willelmo de Athewyk quia essoniator non venit 
versus Thomam filium Willelmi 
De Eodem Willelmo quia essoniator de communi Secta 
non venit 
De Ricardo de Thang pro licentia concordandi 
De Slema la Wyche judea pro transgressione 
De Priore de Novo Burgo pro attornato habendo 
De Mayr’ de Roderham judeo pro auxilio habendo 
De Roberto de Wythby pro eodem 
Summa Ixxiijs ij d 
-Amerciamenta Comitatus proximi post festum sancte 
Lucie’ eodem anno. 
De Richemano Calle pro falso clameo 


5 Monday, Dee. 15, 1258. 


dim 
dim 
dim 

jm 


dim 
dim 


dim 
dim 
dim 
dim 
dim 
dim 
dim 
dim 
KX 


jm 


1926 | Morris: The Early English County Court 


De Willelmo de Beston quia non habuit quos manu- 
cepit 

De Waltero Frerer pro contemptu 

De Ingramo de Pottehow pro eodem 

De Willelmo preposito de Esterngtona quia essoniator 
non venit 


227 


dim 
ij s 
ij s 


llij s 


De Abbate de Sancta Agatha pro disseisina dim pro bove 
De Symone de Lowthorp pro eodem vs ijd 


Summa xls 


Amerciamenta Comitatus proxima post festum Sancti 
Hillarii® anno eodem. 

De Walter de Grimeston quia testificavit quamdem 
prisam terrae 

De Rogero de Watton pro eodem 

De Galfrido Bonefay pro eodem 

De Roberto filio Alice de Bergerthorp pro eodem 

De Willelmo Hallebarn et Johanne de Haskeham quia 
non habuerunt quem plegiaverunt 

De Domina Matilda de Wrtelay quia non est prosecuta 

De Johanne carettario de Camsall pro auxilio 

Summa xljs iijd 

Amerciamenta comitatus die Lune proxima ante festum 
Sancti Gregorii’ anno eodem. 

De Germano Hay quia essoniator non venit 

De Henrico de Pokethorp pro licentia concordandi 

De Hugone de Yolthorp pro die amoris habendo 

De Matheo le Breton quia essoniator non venit 

Summa xxvj li xvs nijd 

De Margeria de Sproxton pro falso clameo 

De Villa de Hoveden pro evasione 

De Abbate de Salleya de fine pro auxilio 


6 Jan. 20,1259. 7 Mar. 10, 1259. 


1s 
ijs 
js 
ijs 


dim 
jm 
jm 


dim 
dim 
ij s 
dim 


dim 
viij li 
dim 


228 University of California Publications in History (Vou. 14 
De Petro Dringe pro licentia concordandi llij s 
De Villa de Stokesley pro evasione viij li 
De Elya filio magistri moss pro auxilio xls 
De Benedicto filio Jocey pro besantio lllj s 
De Isaac Nepote Aaron pro auxilio Xx s 
De Thoma le Wayt pro auxilio jm 
De Willelmo Molendinario de Sckelhall pro eodem llij s 
De Willelmo Bulle pro eodem dim 
De Roberto Wynet pro eodem jm 
De Rogero Birkebayn pro eodem xs 
De Willelmo Herodes pro eodem jm 
De Waltero Orwayn de Kirkeby pro eodem dim 

Summa xxiijli xs vijd 
Amerciamenta comitatus proximi post pascham® anno 
eodem. 
De Waltero Malot pro licentia conecordandi ij s 
De Patricio de Westewyk’ pro eodem VS 
De Hugone de Yolthorp quia non est prosecutus ilij s 
De Willelmo filio Angeri et Radulpho filio Mariote 

pro plegio llij s 
De Roberto de Frithby pro falso clameo ~ dim 
De Isabella de Speton pro licentia concordandi dim 
De Henrico filio Willelmi et Willelmo de Lelay pro 

plegio | dim 
De Willelmo Crok pro habenda inquisitione lllj s 
De Boneamy Genere Jocey pro besantio | xij den 
De eodem pro eodem versus Thomas de Hothom ijs 
De Waltero de Karleton pro auxilio ij m 
Amerciamenta Comitatus. In crastino sancte Trinitatis 

anno eodem.?® 
De Johanne de Thorneton in Lovesdall pro auxilio dim 
De Philippo de Fauconberge pro licentia conecordandi dim 


8 April 21, 1259. 9 June 9. 


1926 ] Morris: The Early English County Court 229 


De Villa de Thurganthorp pro evasione. Willelmi de 
Galmethorp vilj li 
De Villa de Holm pro evasione Johannis de Arneste vijj li 


Summa xx li ijs 


Amerciamenta comitatus proximi ante festum Sancte 
Margarete’? anno eodem. 


De Uberto Tuye pro auxilio dim 
De Johanne de Linton pro eodem dim 
De Ricardo Bereario pro eodem dim 
De Ricardo filio Benedicti pro eodem dim 
De Adam preposito de Wapelington pro eodem xs 
De Johanne Arnhall quia essoniator ejus recessit sine 

die dim 
De Ricardo de Monte Alto pro leentia concordandi dim 
De Rogero Russell quia non acquietavit priorem de | 

Ormesby 1s 
De Villa de Thorp Arches pro evasione Ade Dagge- 

pare avily li 
De Joceo de Patricpol pro besantio ij s 
De Benedicto filio Adem de Hechworth pro auxilio jm 
De Johanne Bercario de Arnely pro eodem jm 
De Galfrido Barbreste pro eodem xs 
De Adam prepositio de Armeley pro auxilio- jm 


Summa xiijli iiijs 
Amerciamenta comitatus proximi in crastino Sancti 
Bartholomei."' 
De Waltero Bacheler pro falso clameo js 
De Johanne Surdevall quia non habuit quem plegiavit xs 
De Willelmo de Midelton in Wymbelton quia non venit vs 
De Willelmo filio Ricardi de Apelton pro eodem lilj s 
De Roberto Barne in Kiling’ pro eodem ij s 


10 July 14. 11 Aug. 25, 1259. 


230 Unversity of Califorma Publications in History 


De Adam filio Willelmo Ousteby pro eodem 

De Johanne persona de Thorneton quia non est 
prosecutus 

De Radulfo Gaugy pro eodem 

De Radulfo Helto pro leentia concordandi 


Summa xxxvlj s et vilj d 


[ Vou. 14 
ijs 
dim 


lilj s 
ij s 


hae! 
. 
', 
‘ I” 
, ’ 
- 
’ 
: 
a 
‘ 
1 
? 
* 
¢ 
‘ 
\ 
‘ 
' 
Se 
x 
t 
. 
. 
, 
t } 
| ; 
\ T 
f 
‘4 
é 
' 
+ 
‘ 
A : 
. 
. s 
6 vee 





ae oie 








Peas 


TO 


Eo ts 


TT 


25 








